2/ Among the myriad things that exist are conscious minds, susceptible to a vast range of actual (and possible) experiences.
-
-
Show this thread
-
3/ Unfortunately, many experiences suck. And they don’t just suck as a matter of cultural convention or personal bias—they really and truly suck. (If you doubt this, place your hand on a hot stove and report back.)
Show this thread -
4/ Conscious minds are natural phenomena. Consequently, if we were to learn everything there is to know about physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, economics, etc., we would know everything there is to know about making our corner of the universe suck less.
Show this thread -
5/ If we *should* to do anything in this life, we should avoid what really and truly sucks. (If you consider this question-begging, consult your stove, as above.)
Show this thread -
6/ Of course, we can be confused or mistaken about experience. Something can suck for a while, only to reveal new experiences which don’t suck at all. On these occasions we say, “At first that sucked, but it was worth it!”
Show this thread -
7/ We can also be selfish and shortsighted. Many solutions to our problems are zero-sum (my gain will be your loss). But *better* solutions aren’t. (By what measure of “better”? Fewer things suck.)
Show this thread -
8/ So what is morality? What *ought* sentient beings like ourselves do? Understand how the world works (facts), so that we can avoid what sucks (values).
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The problem in this initial premise is it assumes the existence of possibility. But from the perspective of hard determinism, there is no "what may or might be", only "what is" and "what will certainly be"
-
*Actual* experiences are sufficient for my argument. (And I might well be an actualist.) Whatever happens next, there is a vast difference between the best and worst outcomes. We can't help but try to navigate between them.
-
Hmm... I think if you're a hard determinist, it would not make much sense to TRY at anything, bc the outcome is preordained, and if you're not, then you are granting POSSIBILITY is built into the very fabric of reality in a way that strict empiricism cannot account for
-
Tell that to your stove.
-
except that he completely misconstrued my position lol
-
Lol
all I get from his 8 tweets of rhetoric is that @SamHarrisOrg is thinking a lot about sucking.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
You're glossing over the logical leap that "suck" is a value judgment, not a fact. It's not a universal experience despite being the most basic stimulus. Also, if that is the basis for our morality, the most efficient way to achieve a "suckless" world is to destroy it.
-
Consult your stove. How is this experience not universal?
-
So how this rare condition proves the point that pain from the hot stove is not universal?
-
Well, it literally is not universal, for one, because there are people who don't experience it. That's just the extreme end of people who have a different experience and hence "value" it differently. How can we build a universal morality on top of it?
-
And if we're not looking to build a universal system of morality from facts (because individuals value facts differently), then there's no way we're going to end up building a morality system that benefits everyone.
-
that's exactly where science comes in as Sam mentions. Because science works with probabilities. I'm genuinely interested in this question and have been contemplating it since long time and I honestly can't find a good example where science wouldn't be the answer
-
But that just assumes that you can even define 'goodness' down to a scalar value. We agree on a lot of things as good, but we also disagree on many others and there isn't a mathematical way to solve moral dilemmas. Is abortion bad, scientifically? Is it good?
- 3 more replies
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.