If there is no universal premise, the statement "it is the aim of sentient beings" becomes "imo, it should be the aim of sentient beings". Moreso If you agreed with my last tweet, that's all the theist you disagreed with was saying (at one point, no doubt the convo meandered).
-
-
Replying to @AustraliaToon1
I mean it *is* the biological aim of sentient beings to do things which make them thrive and avoid things which make them die. These are associated with wellbeing and suffering.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose
When linking something to morality, bringing an "ought" from an "is" is dangerous. I do agree with you that generally, and for the majority of the population, self preservation and thriving is important.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @AustraliaToon1
I disagree strongly with that but can't be bothered to have the is/ought argument again. If sentients don't like to suffer and we care about their wellbeing, reducing suffering is inevitable conclusion. And this is instinctive to us.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
No probs. It could stem from the different way we use particular words, in this case "ought". I don't disagree with anything in the second part of your tweet. No harm done.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @HPluckrose @AustraliaToon1
You can even disagree with me and that would still be OK.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
I didn't realise you had a big"is/ought" discussion it I wouldn't have started. Thanks for your time on this.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AustraliaToon1
It went on for two days and involved much acrimony and heatedness. It is OK to talk to me about stuff! You're one of my earliest tweeps and I like talking to you.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
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.
