Skip to content
By using Twitter’s services you agree to our Cookies Use. We and our partners operate globally and use cookies, including for analytics, personalisation, and ads.
  • Home Home Home, current page.
  • About

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Language: English
    • Bahasa Indonesia
    • Bahasa Melayu
    • Català
    • Čeština
    • Dansk
    • Deutsch
    • English UK
    • Español
    • Filipino
    • Français
    • Hrvatski
    • Italiano
    • Magyar
    • Nederlands
    • Norsk
    • Polski
    • Português
    • Română
    • Slovenčina
    • Suomi
    • Svenska
    • Tiếng Việt
    • Türkçe
    • Ελληνικά
    • Български език
    • Русский
    • Српски
    • Українська мова
    • עִבְרִית
    • العربية
    • فارسی
    • मराठी
    • हिन्दी
    • বাংলা
    • ગુજરાતી
    • தமிழ்
    • ಕನ್ನಡ
    • ภาษาไทย
    • 한국어
    • 日本語
    • 简体中文
    • 繁體中文
  • Have an account? Log in
    Have an account?
    · Forgot password?

    New to Twitter?
    Sign up
HPluckrose's profile
Helen Pluckrose
Helen Pluckrose
Helen Pluckrose
@HPluckrose

Tweets

Helen Pluckrose

@HPluckrose

Editor @AreoMagazine Secular, liberal humanist. Mother. Doglover. Writing book about epistemology & ethics on the academic left Helen.pluckrose@areomagazine.com

London.
areomagazine.com/author/hpluckr…
Joined August 2011

Tweets

  • © 2018 Twitter
  • About
  • Help Center
  • Terms
  • Privacy policy
  • Cookies
  • Ads info
Dismiss
Previous
Next

Go to a person's profile

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @

Promote this Tweet

Block

  • Tweet with a location

    You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more

    Your lists

    Create a new list


    Under 100 characters, optional

    Privacy

    Copy link to Tweet

    Embed this Tweet

    Embed this Video

    Add this Tweet to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Add this video to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Hmm, there was a problem reaching the server.

    By embedding Twitter content in your website or app, you are agreeing to the Twitter Developer Agreement and Developer Policy.

    Preview

    Why you're seeing this ad

    Log in to Twitter

    · Forgot password?
    Don't have an account? Sign up »

    Sign up for Twitter

    Not on Twitter? Sign up, tune into the things you care about, and get updates as they happen.

    Sign up
    Have an account? Log in »

    Two-way (sending and receiving) short codes:

    Country Code For customers of
    United States 40404 (any)
    Canada 21212 (any)
    United Kingdom 86444 Vodafone, Orange, 3, O2
    Brazil 40404 Nextel, TIM
    Haiti 40404 Digicel, Voila
    Ireland 51210 Vodafone, O2
    India 53000 Bharti Airtel, Videocon, Reliance
    Indonesia 89887 AXIS, 3, Telkomsel, Indosat, XL Axiata
    Italy 4880804 Wind
    3424486444 Vodafone
    » See SMS short codes for other countries

    Confirmation

     

    Welcome home!

    This timeline is where you’ll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.

    Tweets not working for you?

    Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.

    Say a lot with a little

    When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart — it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.

    Spread the word

    The fastest way to share someone else’s Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.

    Join the conversation

    Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you’re passionate about, and jump right in.

    Learn the latest

    Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.

    Get more of what you love

    Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.

    Find what's happening

    See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.

    Never miss a Moment

    Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.

    1. Helen Pluckrose‏ @HPluckrose Apr 16
      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
    2. Adam Kolasinski‏ @adamckolasinski Apr 16
      Replying to @HPluckrose

      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.

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
    3. Helen Pluckrose‏ @HPluckrose Apr 16
      Replying to @adamckolasinski

      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.

      2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
    4. Adam Kolasinski‏ @adamckolasinski Apr 16
      Replying to @HPluckrose

      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.

      2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
    5. Helen Pluckrose‏ @HPluckrose Apr 16
      Replying to @adamckolasinski

      Do you see that its rational to seek facts on how to have an optimum morality if you want to be optimally moral and rational to seek facts on how best to promote your own interests if you want to do that? So when discussing morality its the former we make arguments about.

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
    6. Helen Pluckrose‏ @HPluckrose Apr 16
      Replying to @HPluckrose @adamckolasinski

      If you're asking how to make people want to be moral when they want to be selfish or how to make people want to be selfish when they want to be moral, this is a different conversation to an exchange of arguments on how to be moral. Then we're into psychology or neuroscience.

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
    7. Helen Pluckrose‏ @HPluckrose Apr 16
      Replying to @HPluckrose @adamckolasinski

      When we talk about whether there can be an empirical argument on a subject, this isn't answered 'no' by people not caring about the subject. Arguments about optimal morality assume all participants to care about optimal morality. Dealing with amoral people is a separate subject.

      2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
    8. Adam Kolasinski‏ @adamckolasinski Apr 16
      Replying to @HPluckrose

      My objection isn't that you can't make MAKE people obey. My objection is that empiricism alone can't provide a rational justification why they SHOULD obey. Put another way, empiricism can't specify what should be optimized when attempting to construct the optimal morality.

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
    9. Helen Pluckrose‏ @HPluckrose Apr 16
      Replying to @adamckolasinski

      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'

      2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
    10. Adam Kolasinski‏ @adamckolasinski Apr 16
      Replying to @HPluckrose

      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.

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
      Helen Pluckrose‏ @HPluckrose Apr 16
      Replying to @adamckolasinski

      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.

      1:50 PM - 16 Apr 2018
      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
        1. New conversation
        2. Adam Kolasinski‏ @adamckolasinski Apr 16
          Replying to @HPluckrose

          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?

          1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
        3. Helen Pluckrose‏ @HPluckrose Apr 16
          Replying to @adamckolasinski

          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.

          1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
        4. Adam Kolasinski‏ @adamckolasinski Apr 16
          Replying to @HPluckrose

          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?

          1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
        5. Helen Pluckrose‏ @HPluckrose Apr 16
          Replying to @adamckolasinski

          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.

          1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
        6. Helen Pluckrose‏ @HPluckrose Apr 16
          Replying to @HPluckrose @adamckolasinski

          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

          1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
        7. Helen Pluckrose‏ @HPluckrose Apr 16
          Replying to @HPluckrose @adamckolasinski

          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?

          1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
        8. Helen Pluckrose‏ @HPluckrose Apr 16
          Replying to @HPluckrose @adamckolasinski

          You've allowed something to get in the way of the golden rule and justified it by something which doesn't work by the golden rule of looking after each other. You didn't increase wellbeing and decrease suffering. You got it wrong

          1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
        9. Helen Pluckrose‏ @HPluckrose Apr 16
          Replying to @HPluckrose @adamckolasinski

          This is intuitive to me as a secular liberal humanist. Care/harm foundation and goodness coming from humanity. No dissonance. You will have the same intuitions but are likely to see them as coming from outside you. Jesus said love thy neighbour. But you feel this.

          1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
        10. 7 more replies

      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.

        Promoted Tweet

        false

        • © 2018 Twitter
        • About
        • Help Center
        • Terms
        • Privacy policy
        • Cookies
        • Ads info