@St_Rev Maybe of interest: http://ow.ly/vlnRF A contemporary Taoist arguing vs moralism. Via @willbuckingham Also http://ow.ly/vloe9
@Meaningness @willbuckingham Also isn't explicitly Daoist but it's still v. Daoist. "Don't fight for what you believe in" overlaps w/Moeller
-
-
@St_Rev@willbuckingham I have nearly zero understanding of Daoism, but yeah that seems right.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@St_Rev@willbuckingham Huemer’s point is largely epistemological: we can’t know what policies are best. Möller’s point so far is ont-ish…Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@St_Rev@willbuckingham Ethics is a collection of tools that recently have been misapplied in all kinds of ways. -
@St_Rev@willbuckingham Nobody asks “what do we want ethics for, anyway?” -
@St_Rev@willbuckingham The eternalist assumption is universal: there is SOME RIGHT ETHICAL THEORY that always tells you what to do. -
@St_Rev@willbuckingham Then people argue fruitlessly about what the correct one is. Or else flirt with ethical nihilism, which is also dumb -
@St_Rev@willbuckingham It’s not that we don’t know what the correct ethical theory is, it’s that there isn’t one. And then what? -
@St_Rev@willbuckingham My supposed ethics chapter starts: what can we do if there’s no general answer, but the matter is important anyway? -
@St_Rev This seems an obvious point, but apart from@willbuckingham’s book, I don’t know anyone who says it. Maybe Möller, not sure yet. -
@Meaningness Seems obvious to me but I find the literature on philosophical ethics indecipherable. - 1 more reply
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.
. Banned in Sweden. SubGenius, Zhuangist, white-hat troll. Defrocked mathematician. Brain problems.