No, you'd need to add some neuroscience to show that we can't help that if neurologically typical. It's part of being a social species. It doesn't matter on a broader scale what we do. Humanity generally only matters to humanity. And maybe dogs. ;-)
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose @Plato4Now and
Heh. We certainly care about those close to us. But caring about people people we have never met is a very modern and far from universal trend.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BDSixsmith @Plato4Now and
Yes, this doesn't detract from the fact that empathy strongly informs Y drives our moral sense as social mammals. Those who don't have empathy, eg psychopaths, very often don't have morality or have difficulty with it.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose @Plato4Now and
Sure, I agree. My point (which I perhaps could have made better earlier) is that universalist ethics defy human nature and demand moral arguments that transcend scientific facts.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @BDSixsmith @Plato4Now and
This is still part of the response to the hypothetical scientist who doesn't know this? It seems like everyone in the conversation knows this.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose @BDSixsmith and
But, look, the conversation went there because some people were questioning that. And saying that some of our evolved moral sentiments are enough to expand morality.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @TheDissenterYT @BDSixsmith and
Well, they're all we have. We can only do morality to the extent that we conceive of morality & this has been shaped by our evolution as social mammals. It's a human thing tho some other social mammals share rudimentary forms of empathy, reciprocity, fairness etc.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @BDSixsmith and
Yes, it's true. But you also have to choose among them to conduct yourself. That's why you have "the better angels of our nature". You also have the worse angels of our nature. So, you can't just follow them indiscriminately.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @TheDissenterYT @BDSixsmith and
That's what the discussions are for, yes. Was anyone arguing for following them indiscriminately? I thought the difference was over whether our evolved morality was enough to explain why we set moral premises & then seek facts about how to implement them.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @BDSixsmith and
Of course our evolved morality is enough for that. But then you have reason and other cognitive processes, and morality is more than just a evolved moral sense + scientific facts to inform it. Even though it's also that, of course.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Yes, of course. Is anyone arguing otherwise? Let's clarify: Are you arguing that human moral values come from anywhere other than human brains & their evolved capacities expressed through language and mediated in groups in relation to other humans & things in the environment?
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.