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?
Why. Maybe they think I'm doing harm by saying gender differences exist and society is better off if I'm too scared to do that again. But is society better off? There's a right or wrong answer. It can be established empirically but might be complicated. In other cases more so
-
-
So we end up with a load of factors to measure but they are all 'is' if we have accepted the golden rule is what underlies human morality.
-
You've given lots of food for thought. I see one big problem with your system. You seem to be assuming that evolved moral intuition rests on one foundation: care/harm. Haidt & others find at least five, & people innately differ in how they weight them. 1/
-
No, I don't. I go with Haidt on those five moral foundations but to to consider them all equally positive just because they exist is the naturalistic fallacy.
-
So how do you use empiricism alone to determine which are to be included in the objective function of your moral optimization problem and which are not?
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.