We don't know enough but if you believe that the most objective morality we can get is an optimum human morality, it takes a huge number of factors to establish exactly what that is so we have to make arguments based on human wellbeing.
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose
Since you've not written on it, who do you think has made the best case for your position, or some close approximation to it? Sam Harris? Anyone else?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @adamckolasinski
Sam Harris, probably, yes. The Moral Landscape.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @adamckolasinski
Because 'ought' comes from human brains too and we don't choose to have morality so its appearance comes down to something that is.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @adamckolasinski
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
If morality is no more than a sense of what you ought to do that evolved due to selection pressures in past environments, and it isn't actually what you ought to do, then there is no reason for you to obey it. Upon what basis do you condemn the rational nihilist who ignores it?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @adamckolasinski
I don't know what you mean? Why does knowing that it evolved mean it isn't actually what we ought to do? The universe doesn't care if we torture each other to extinction but humans do. We have empathy, compassion and sense of justice.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
If morality can be reduced to nothing more than a set of intuitions that evolved by natural selection, then I don't see how it can be normative. Why shouldn't the mob boss ignore it if he finds he thrives by hurting others and stealing? Why should he empsthize with his victims?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @adamckolasinski
I don't know what you mean? What would make it more normative? That's like saying 'If eyes evolved by natural selection, how can they be normative?' They are. We can see them. They're universal apart barring disability. We can see the prefrontal cortex where morality evolved too.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
There will always be a criminal element and they will try to except themselves from moral requirements laid down by the society. But I'm not sure why you think this wouldn't be the case if morality came from elsewhere. Criminals do exist wherever it came from. That is a fact.
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.