Also, unless you are willing to embrace complete moral reletavism, you must accept that there are some universal moral truths.
-
-
Replying to @adamckolasinski
No, I don't. I have access to only a tiny part of the universe. There is almost certainly an optimal morality for human thriving and wellbeing based on consistent needs we have. No reason to think this holds up outside us. Our evolved to very specific environmental pressures.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
How do you decide that your idea of thriving and well-being is the correct one?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @adamckolasinski
Evidence of what helps humans survive. Honestly, I have no interest in having this conversation for the billionth time. You can either search & read previous conversations or just accept I go largely with Sam Harris' argument on this.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
Ill just point out that there's more to thriving & wellbeing than mere survival and leave it at that. We can agree to disagree if you're not up for this discussion.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @adamckolasinski
Thriving. We'll be arguing about the best way to do that forever but it is basically rooted in basic common human needs. After that, for liberal humanists, there is freedom to do one's own thing as long as it harms no-one else.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
I just hope you realize that the superiority of the liberal humanist morals can't be established with empiricism alone.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @adamckolasinski
No, I didn't because I was born yesterday and have never considered morality before ever.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @adamckolasinski
I'm sorry I'm getting impatient but I really don't need this very basic introduction to moral philosophy. I have a position on this which rejects Hume's 'ought' and 'is' divide, accepts that humans have consistent basic needs and then vary widely in how they express them.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @adamckolasinski
I will argue for liberal humanism because in this way, people get to live as they wish provided they don't impose on others. I think this would be the optimum but I could be wrong. It's possible that this isn't strong enough to oppose fundamentalist mentalities.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
But I am sorry for being impatient. I have a load of people wanting to have arguments with me that I stopped having years ago because I am so bored by them. I shouldn't snark at you, tho.
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.