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?
What argument can make people think they should be moral if they don't care about morality? What can't be answered with 'Nah, I'm just going to look out for me?' Another 'is' is that people ARE moral. It is not me who is arguing for a 'should' (Ought). I am saying it is all 'is'
-
-
You can't really blame someone who is arguing there is no 'ought' separate from 'is' for not having an 'ought' separate from 'is.' You can only say it won't convince amoral people but this is true of every argument for morality. You'd need to step away from your need for ought.
-
You're not following because this is counterintuitive to where you are coming from but I'll only be repeating myself if I try to explain further. This is why I get so bored and frustrated with these conversations and don't have them any more. Best to read Sam Harris.
-
Fair enough. I'll go read Harris. At this point tweeting about it isn't likely to be productive.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I agree you can't make a logically coherent argument for morality over amorality based on empiricism alone! That's my point. But suppose we assume all people r moral. What if they r optimizing something different than you? Empiricism is insufficient for deciding what to optimize.
-
I don't make that claim. We are just talking past each other. People can be wrong or right about what they are optimising. Empiricism means we do not decide. There are right and wrong answers.
-
You say people can be right or wrong about what they optimize, but then you say emiricism means we can't decide. That would seem to suggest there is some non-empirical basis upon which they are right or wrong, which is my original point. What am I missing?
-
The point. People can be right or wrong about whether they are a product of evolution and this is not something they can decide. The truth of the matter is still determined by empirical means. Please don't ask me to go through this again. I'll only be saying the same things.
-
I think I get it now. People's evolved moral intuition determines what they optimize over. Accepting the solution to that optimization problem is therefore by definition what is best for them. Do I have that right?
-
Not quite but closer. Our consistent aim for wellbeing and lack of suffering indicates human fundamental goals and determines the fundamentals of our morality because thjs is what our empathy, compassion & justice (moral intuitions) lead us to moralise over.
-
Rewards are about wellbeing whether material or heavenly. Punishments about suffering whether material or hellish. All human societies and some nonhuman promote kindness, caring, honesty etc. We thrived as a species by looking after each other so this is how our morality works
-
But we can get things wrong. Love thy neighbour is consistent with this looking after each other. The Golden rule is too. But what if you beat up your neighbour coz he's not the same religion as you and your morality doesn't extend to him because you see him as bad?
- 9 more replies
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.