another service our antinatalist friends perform! normative rationalism proceeds by palming a card, reasoning to a point where an emotive judgment is elided because it's assumed to be universal; antinatalists show no such response is in fact universalhttps://twitter.com/chaosprime/status/1150605408454815745 …
-
-
Replying to @chaosprime
People who wring their hands about whether or not they can strictly reason their way to something being right or wrong tend to have the weakest moral judgment. You would think the parable of Solomon and the two mothers would have sunk in by now
2 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @ThePatanoiac @chaosprime
What do you mean, “weakest”? The only way I can interpret this sensibly is if you think there’s an objective morality that you access through intuitions and “rational thinking” obscured those intuitions. (Or maybe a personal morality accessed through intuitions?)
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @TWakalix @chaosprime
Morality is a tangled thing from many forces, and reason doesn't encompass it alone (though it is a component). Attempts to override and find some fully rational result, ignoring the cultural, internal, etc. tends to produce unrecognizable results like the antinatalism example.
3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @ThePatanoiac @chaosprime
So they’re weakest because the hand-wringers tend to ignore non-rational sources of information about morality? Makes sense. It’s not rationality itself that’s the problem, but the exclusion of all other thinking.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
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.