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
-
-
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 -
Replying to @HPluckrose @adamckolasinski
You don't rationalise it. You don't have to stop & think whether you should beat me up coz I don't believe what you do and remember what Jesus said. You have no wish to hurt me & would help me if I needed it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @adamckolasinski
A fundamentalist (not necessarily religious) could justify beating me up but this is because something is getting in the way of their empathy for their fellow man. They are acting against their innate morality. They are getting it wrong.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @adamckolasinski
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
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @adamckolasinski
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
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/
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @adamckolasinski @HPluckrose
The empirically "optimum" morality is going to depend on how you weight the 5+ moral foundations. How can empiricism alone determine which weights are the "right"? 2/
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @adamckolasinski
By the consequences of them. I am going to ask you to read Sam Harris on this. I am so bored of discussing it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
Fair enough. I'm going to go to the library now to check out Harris's book. I'll just leave you with a though: you are now assuming consequentialism is the right system, a proposition that itself cannot be established through empiricism alone.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Please understand it before trying to find holes. Yes, consequences can be measured empirically and must be to determine whether or not something helps or hinders wellbeing.
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.