But that condemnation is purely subjective. Why should he care what we think? Why should he extend the circle of empathy?
??? I really can't explain any better than that, I'm afraid. If you still don't understand what I mean, saying it all over again is unlikely to help. I am speaking to what is optimum human morality which SH explains by saying it is akin to an optimum human diet.
-
-
You're not following me for the reason religious people generally don't. You'd first need to accept, at least for the sake of argument, that morality is not something humans seek outside themselves but a quality of us, that we can understand as a whole load of 'is's & get right.
-
I am perfectly willing to entertain the idea. What I can't understand is how all those 'is's' can possibly provide a rational argument to follow moral precepts that might, on occasion, be against our individual self interest.
-
It's the same as how all these 'is's can provide a rational argument for eating an optimal diet that might, on occasion, be against our preferences. These are different things - what is optimal and what we want to do.
-
If we could programme all the 'is's that pertain to human morality into a computer & it could calculate the optimum human morality in any given situation, this still won't wash with someone who isn't thinking morally but selfishly. Those would be different calculations.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Fair enough. I'll go read SH's book. Maybe then I'll get it.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.