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 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.
-
-
It doesn’t seem basic and isn’t basic. Most human societies have seen some kinds of suffering as good, or some groups of people suffering as good. They believed in the suffering, they just didn’t care about it or liked it. Labelingit sociopathic isn’t any argument against it.
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.