Moral agency requires grounding one’s beliefs in evidence. If a moral system declares believing without evidence to be a virtue, it asks to give up moral agency.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @jingle__belle @Plinz
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
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @jingle__belle @Plinz
I am not destroying the validity of evidence, just questioning the power of it when we discuss morality and moral agents. It does, but it's too personal. If tomorrow for instance you avoid an accident. There are two evidences 1 you are "lucky". 2 God exists. what do you choose?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
I think there is an objective relationship between policy and outcome, but there is not always a policy for the desired outcome, and ranking the available outcomes may not have a universal solution, because it depends on the scope you are taking. In the long run, we are all dead.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
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.