Please change my mind and take my money: #TheMoralLandscapeChallengehttp://bit.ly/17rasV6
@Metamagician I can't remember, have you addressed my "worst possible misery for everyone argument"?
-
-
@SamHarrisOrg In short, we have a reason to amelioriate misery insofar as we care. We are not objectively bound to in the nature of things. - 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
@SamHarrisOrg Would you mind linking your responses to the criticism you've gotten for those of us a little new to the debate?@Metamagician -
@CounterApologis@SamHarrisOrg@Metamagician They're on his blog. Check Sams profile. 'Response to my Critics'
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@SamHarrisOrg Am I objectively bound in the nature of things to take the second choice? I don't see it. -
@Metamagician@SamHarrisOrg That's not the argument. You're not bound to do anything. The information is there. It's your choice whether /1 -
@Metamagician@SamHarrisOrg However, that doesn't mean that it would be immoral to put the well-being of your family first. -
@JimMacDonaldMMA@SamHarrisOrg I don't see how you are *objectively* required in such a situation not to put your family first. /1
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@SamHarrisOrg What if have the choice of making myself or a loved one 3 units less miserable or someone else 5 units less miserable? 3/Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@SamHarrisOrg If it's the worst possible misery for everyone, including me and my loved ones, I have a PRUDENTIAL reason to obviate it. /2Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@SamHarrisOrg I may not have addressed that particular para or so - but I don't think it achieves very much. /1Thanks. 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.