What % of the time do people tend to be 'morally right' about a controversial issue even if they're not 'factually right' about important, morally relevant aspects of the issue?
Show this thread
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
Anything by Peter Singer on applied ethics. Consequentialists (of my variety) believe you should maximize sentient well-being, and the well-being isn't in our subjective judgments, it's in the experiences of the other sentient beings affected by our actions.
-
-
Are their experiences not subjective?
-
Their suffering is just as real to them as yours is to you. That's the point. It's not 'subjective' in the usual sense of 'uncertain' and 'prone to bias'
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Makes sense. Sounds similar Epicureanism save for the emphasis on maximizing sentient well-being based on other peoples experiences with oneself.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Since the all the results of my actions are uncertain does this not lead to the inaction. Since I cannot for certain ascertain all of the impact of my actions have on other people would I be able to perform any act morally?
-
Existing is immoral. Do your best anyway.
- 1 more reply
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.