Science cannot tell us right from wrong on its own, but after defining some basis of values, science can contribute to assessing success in fulfilling them. For example, 1 can define more core as to minimize harm. Then, science can help construct a structure around that.
-
-
Here's a depressing example from my TL. Science cannot tell us (who) to kill or not kill. It's the moral code (and law) that needs to be changed, certainly not more empirical data gathered.https://twitter.com/hardsci/status/956597828616298496 …
-
Holly shit! This is really depressing, we are but a depraved race/species, in that order!
-
I could not finish reading it. I don’t know know where to start ... oh wait, I do know: get rid of the death penalty. Seems like a good place to start.
-
Yes, indeed! Get rid of of the death penalty right now!
-
Following with the topic of morality have any of you seen this? Would it fall under the umbrella of Scientism? http://www.mpmlab.org/TDM%20PSPR.pdf
-
This looks very interesting, thanks! I’m looking for more formal computational approaches to (the cognition of) morality.
-
I don't know on morality but I think being kind requires some concept of shared reward. I wrote a program where one agent could predict what another would do, they competed for res. I was actually interested in seeing if improper definition of shared reward led to kills. It did.
- 5 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.
