what if the evidence shows that belief without evidence leads to desirable outcomes?
-
-
-
Are you sure that the belief in the evidence of that is justified by evidence, or is it just virtuous to think that? (It may sometimes be ethically correct to give up moral agency.)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Belief comes only in cases where proof is not available or not practically doable. It’s like our belief on pseudo random number generators—we believe that no human can predict the next number because no human can read the whole sequence. Moral agency is just a model.
-
In one of the tea shop discussions, was once asked: If a person morally believes that raping/killing is not wrong, is he justified to rape/kill. Moral agency may make an act [appear] justifiable to one, though unacceptable to another.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
If I may, what would we consider evidence? We are playing with words. Evidence without personal meaning is nothing. And "personal" is flawed, in a good and useful way, but it is. So, there is no true evidence, and moral agency is a social evolution tool for non zero sum cases
- 6 more replies
-
-
-
I suspect that if we could know what constitutes evidence, we wouldn't need morality or beliefs in the first place. Reality seems to be finely tuned to force agency upon us by presenting many conflicting modalities of evidence gathering.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.