That's right. The moral rules aren't objective. The suffering and well-being are objective. That's enough.
Darwinian morality: We don't have to believe there's an Eternal Moral Code written into the fabric of the Cosmos. We just have to believe that other sentient beings evolved, their suffering is real, and their well-being is relevant.
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
That wouldn't be a 'moral' motivation; that would just be a prudential motivation. Nothing moral about it.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Not good enough.
-
I'd love to see a book-length treatment of this subject by an erudite, fact-honoring sociologist.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
There's no law of the universe that says we have to try to minimise suffering, but it's just stupid not to.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I appreciate attempts like this... they just seem to always miss the mark -- and I'm not sure how to fix that. Seems tantamount to saying "suffering is bad", which is circular because the only means of defining bad in this framing is via suffering.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Tautological arguments here. Natural selection can favor plenty of ethical dead-ends (tribalism, promiscuity, polygamy) and random bugs in our moral source code. “Because, science” is useless on the topics of meaning, beauty, transcendence.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I think flourishing is a much better principle than suffering. Beauty serves as a motivating principle and flourishing roughly coincides with our sympathy with beauty.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.