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.
-
You can’t just say their suffering is relevant you have to say why.
Why wouldn't another sentient being's suffering be relevant to us? Why is the burden of proof against the most fundamental ethical stance?
-
-
You can’t just slap down something as “the most fundamental ethical stance”. What are you going to do when people come back and claim it’s actually “obedience to God”, “living in harmony with nature”, or that their aren’t fundamental ethical stances? How do you persuade them?
-
You give them empirical evidence on suffering. If they don't care, they're probably sociopathic. They might other moral perspectives on top of that, but concern about suffering seems pretty basic.
- 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.