Did you write this? It's not very "philosophically" compelling.
-
-
-
Yes, I wrote it. It's not a painstakingly-reasoned treatise -- it's an informal, extemporaneous case for why the person's moral intuitions could be laudable, even if his act ultimately lacked justification.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
You should consider hubris as a moral failing. And also the fact that there's plenty of people damned to eternal hellfire on his view, making his choice of this particular isolated tribe rather odd.
-
The moral logic here is similar to how the US justifies its military adventurism. Unwarranted confidence in its moral superiority, but selects targets in a way that betrays self-interest. Ultimately undermines its good intentions.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
It's one of the most insidious things about religious fundamentalism. People doing things they genuinely think are noble, which are to anyone with basic common sense, horrible.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
That is not so much philosophically interesting as it is not interesting. Torturing babies because you believe it is good for them is not morally praiseworthy, and the self-evidence of this fact is why the above is not a serious stance in moral philosophy.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
It is fervent supremacist thinking.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
He died a martyr going straight to heaven a good result
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It’s even more philosophically interesting when you layer technological advancement on top of the problem: is it ethical to bring them modern healthcare, modern ideas, and modern luxuries?
- 17 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Have you research much in the way of virtue ethics? It’s pretty much what you’re talking about, and a fair chunk of the literature would agree with 5
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
Logic of belief system is not a feature, its a flaw. Logic is the opposite of belief. You can not justify encroachment with what is convenient to a non rigorous system of behavior.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thank you for clarifying. Of course it was a Vancouver, WA ideologue. There’s no justification to introduce microbes. But the issue is not that you might get killed / tribal people are “dangerous,” but it is wrong: settler colonialism, i.e. pilgrims setting up a theocracy
-
it’s not moral for folks of industrialized, developed nations to believe they are civilizing othershttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-46301059 …
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Sounds like Pueblo Sin Fronteras went to the same missionary training school.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
1) you can't prove #3 2) "let people live in a dirt floored hut because if you introduce them to the modern world they might get sick" is not a morally defensible position
-
The burden of proof of any belief is always on the believer, so until proven otherwise, it is by default invalid. Secondly the missionary wasn’t there to introduce modern medicine, and any contact might have gotten them seriously ill.
- 10 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.