Sure but I would argue that the point of virtues is that they are good rules for producing good ends in general, despite such ignorance. Still the ends justify the rules.
-
-
Agreed, I hope to understand the difference better
-
Not trying to be further antagonist, but being someone who works in physics and machine learning, I see no separation between pattern recognition and expectation of results.
-
Humans aren't computers. Culture isn't a quantitative optimization problem.
-
Thanks for clarifying. We further disagree.
-
For the former, I'd get lost in biology and just say: they are. For the later, first, I'd say: why not?
-
Then l'd try to reframe progressivism and morality as clearly optimizing something
-
Interesting discussion
My 2 pennies - if new info came to light, that what was thought a virtue was leading to previously unknown but clearly bad consequences.... it stops being a virtue, just like that.
Preferences for particular consequences are always the key to ethics.
End of conversation
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.