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.
-
-
Replying to @adamckolasinski
No, that's just what we have to do when we get an outlier who is a danger to the rest of society. I don't know how to explain to you why we should care about other people if you don't already. I think you do tho & you couldn't turn it off if you tried.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @adamckolasinski
It is in our nature to care this way. But tribalism is also in our nature and the capacity for violence & cruelty. Hence the need to talk about, work out and persuade others of the optimal moral system which benefits all of us.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @adamckolasinski
If you want something bigger than us to come & validate those aspects of us that are humane, humanitarian and humanist, I can't help you. I can only tell you and provide sources for what is already there - the best aspects of our nature and argue that it should be extended to all
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @adamckolasinski
The optimal human morality would be the system which maximises human wellbeing, minimises human suffering because this is what all humans want for themselves and is extended to all humans for that reason too. We can disagree and go our own way within that on how to live.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @adamckolasinski
There is no more to it than this. You can ask how do I justify this rationally to someone who doesn't want to do it and if this requires something outside shared human needs and moral foundations to justify it, I can't. This is a human morality expanded to all humans.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
Perhaps I'm reading you incorrectly, but it appears that you are conceding that empirical reasoning alone is insufficient to provide a rational argument as to why people ought to expand their circle of empathy too all humans. Do I have that right?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @adamckolasinski
??? 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.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @adamckolasinski
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
I totally accept as plausible, nay probable, that moral intuitions are an innate product of natural selection. What I cannot see is how, if that is all they are, it is rational to obey these intuitions in circumstances when disobeying is beneficial to the individual.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
You seem to be asking 'If there empirical answers to optimum morality, how will we get people who don't care about morality to obey them.' We won't. In the same way, we won't persuade someone who doesn't want to be healthy to comply with empirical evidence of how best to be so.
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.