Now you have reduced morality to power. We punish those who disregard others because we want to and can. You haven't established why we should.
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.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I don't think that analogy works. The argument for the optimal diet is grounded on it being in my own long-run material self interest. In contrast, to be moral I must do what is right, and that sometimes goes against even my long-run material self interest.
-
In analogies things are the same in some particulars and different in others. I am not arguing that morality and diet are the same thing. I am arguing that there are facts to be known in both - right and wrong answers - in both of them and that people seeking them can access them
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.