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.
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.