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.
Because 'ought' comes from human brains too and we don't choose to have morality so its appearance comes down to something that is.
-
-
Maybe Harris has an answer, but if there are no oughts, only is's, then it seems the logical conclusion is nihilism. And I don't think that's where you stand. But I'll go read the book before commenting further.
-
No, I don't see why knowing where my morality came from indicates nihilism. We already know it is there, that we didn't chose it and that we can't lose it without a frontal lobotomy. Trying to work down to what is the best for humans is something we'll be doing forever.
-
But to suggest it comes elsewhere from human brains which are essentially a load of biological facts, is not supported by evidence so there are right answers even if we never reach them. The best we can do is go with SH's premise on the wellbeing of conscious creatures & reason.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.