This seems to imply there is some optimal psychology, or at least a vector in which psychology “ought” to point; in other words, it has a dependency on a notion of “goodness”. If there is goodness, then there is at least the possibility of evil.
-
-
Maybe "hard" is not what you mean. Asking because the quoted character was crime lord in Bombay. While profiting off other things he banished the porn industry on moral principle. He likely would describe the Rotherham perpetrators as evil w/o difficulty.
-
there is no obvious logical argument
-
Rotherham was kind of complex. What's your take on Richard Ramirez?
-
I mostly don't see how to get from "universal complexity" to "human life and relations"
-
Something like: Humans are the highest expression of natural complexity, take that as good, so human life and relations should be maintained. Not saying it's precise, but it's good enough to recognize "degeneracy" like child sex abuse.
-
I don’t know if this works, since I could build Rube Goldberg machines of arbitrary complexity, more complex than any human, and then in this model, they would have more moral value than humans
-
That's part of why it's imprecise, because complexity is not standardized. How many humans equal one of your Rube Goldberg's? n/a
-
OTOH child sexual abuse seems totally unrelated to universal complexity
- 9 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.