I think in Dawkins's mind, 'works' means he thinks humans can successfully and responsibly guide top-down (read: bio-engineered) human gene optimization, with success criteria determined by utilitarian principles
-
-
Replying to @cognazor @ericlinuskaplan and
I'd not say Dawkins thinks we can *responsibly* guide it. That's why he said he does not morally support it. He's just being a modernist, looking at questions in isolation. The extreme negative reaction is PoMo, saying it's meaningless to separate moral and technical questions.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @GregDember @cognazor and
Why does he deplore it? Why does he deplore slavery? It makes me suspicious when people say “of course slavery works. Its just wrong.” I dont think slavery works because its wrong. Does that make me a postmodernist?
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @ericlinuskaplan @GregDember and
Or just a 'low-decoupler' (i.e., you think abstract intellectual discussions should fully account for context):https://everythingstudies.com/2018/04/26/a-deep-dive-into-the-harris-klein-controversy/ …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cognazor @GregDember and
When hume said reason is and ought to be the slave of the passions was he a low decoupler? Or a high decoupler because he was able to decouple the arguments for decoupling from context? Moral: decoupling is a dumb idea designed to rename moral blindness as something good.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @ericlinuskaplan @GregDember and
I don't think the author makes a normative claim about whether decoupling is good or not. Just pointing out the spectrum
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @cognazor @ericlinuskaplan and
For the record, I think that high decoupling is morally problematic and epistemologically suspect
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cognazor @ericlinuskaplan and
It denies a systems/embedded view of life, a denial which is the source of many problems today, ecological collapse being the most salient example
2 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @cognazor @ericlinuskaplan and
I can see that point, and agree. However what tends to go with something being "immoral" is the ability to address, talk, or even think about the thing. You push it outside the Overton window, turning it invisible. Anyone who is immoral can see it tho, and use it against you.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @ssica3003 @ericlinuskaplan and
Yeah, I can see that lens as well. Both should be woven together
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
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.