crossed threshold arguments. I typically refer to how most people don't do this when it comes to family,siblings, children, friends: they recognize beyond a bare minimum many are valuable in different ways for different people. it's when you reason about strangers that isms start
-
-
Replying to @SilverVVulpes @eigenrobot
yeah, I'm referring to "universal" moral value here, not stuff like "values family more". Most people value their family more, but they wouldn't argue that their family is objectively more morally valuable than other people.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
basically: if you have any notion of humans being inherently, objectively morally valuable, is that value the same across all humans, why/why not? I can't in the general case think of reasons why materialists should think it's equal.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ded_ruckus @eigenrobot
and I say that I think it's pretty arbitrary to assume it will NOT be equal,or be something that is valid for individual comparisons except extreme cases!I think this is a cultural bias from the typical reference point for non-materialism being universalist ethics in Christianity
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SilverVVulpes @eigenrobot
I mean, most materialist worldviews I can think of, when instantiated across an entire society, just throw out "all humans have value" altogether. (atheist rationalists in the West still live in a Christian society and are typically raised Christian-ish, so can't extrapolate.)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ded_ruckus @eigenrobot
and I guess (again, sorry for needing many tweets to get at this point, this is either my fault, twitter's, or both) the first sentence here is why I disagree, or I view it as highly contigent on our recent cultural context (blah blah capitalism blah blah nihilism)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @SilverVVulpes @eigenrobot
well, on a historical level, the "all humans have value" bit is actually kind of rare, even in non-materialist cultures. It comes out of Christianity in theory, some other religious strains less commonly, and... that's about it? (other examples welcomed ofc.)
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ded_ruckus @eigenrobot
Well, this is the point where I'd say that I'd need to look up what I half remember about for example, the ancient greek philosophers that had want some recognize as proto-humanist philosophy despiste no Christianity. One could arso argue that pre-agriculture people were...
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
very egalitarian within community and massively sexist by our standards for pratical reasons, for example. I guess the thing is once again not about differences in capacity-> rights within a community, which is not to be assumed, but the massively weird, recent innovation...
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
that materialists ought to justify is the rights that previous proto-humanists or humanists with-without Christianity exposure assigned every human in their community/tribe/civilized people/whatever, but not the "outgrup". "Outgrup has human rights too" is the weird thing.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
When I wake up and see that people have spent dozens of tweets arguing in my replies I smile wanly and read none of it This is not a good use of the medium
-
-
Replying to @eigenrobot @ded_ruckus
okay, sorry, I think this happens a lot because of our timezones and will program a monster so slap me everytime I keep you on for more than 5 tweets without any input from you
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @SilverVVulpes @ded_ruckus
No its ok but uh Depending on your intended audience the message may not be received
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - Show 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.