Quick question... under philosophical naturalism, wherein everything physical is simply explained by random physical processes, what is the difference between a chocolate bunny and a human? Oh yeah.. what is the difference between destroying the chocolate bunny and the human? Thanks.
Random isn't really right, especially if one holds a necessitarian view. The difference for some might just purely be the difference of mereological simples arranged chocolate Bunny wise vs arranged human wise. They might say their just is a preference (stance dependent) to protect one over the other; for which they'd likely appeal to evolutionary processes/selective pressures that explain the commonality among other agents. They won't have some extrinsic notion of what should be valued, but rather they likely cash out the internal values as dispositions towards things we detect with agency vs inanimate concreta. So the difference you'd be looking for just isn't in their view, and that could favor them on simplicity if they can explain all the data equally or better. Obviously there are several objections to raise on this view so that's not to say it's true but your attitude seems to be concerned with consequences, which is irrelevant to the position, unless the consequence is some type of logical inconsistency
If anyone is tempted to run out and purchase Rosenberg's book in the hope of learning 'how to live without illusion'; I would recommend reading Umberto Eco's 'Kant and the platypus' first! :-) What was it Kant said about being purposely, purposeless?
I think, were one to read Critique of the Gotha Program, one would support, rather than a social democracy or something "progressive liberal" rather than "conservative liberal", a scientific socialist (communist) goal. The moral arguments for communism are not the only ones. For me, going from capitalism to communism is an engineering matter. The profit motive is not a sustainable motive, and is not even the true motive for production and innovation. Flourishing is. "Why care about flourishing?" is as meaningful a question as "why be neurotypical?"
That political jibe about the rich factory owner was incredibly weak and illogical. He doesn't "owe" you anything for forcing him to send his child to public school...... in fact he would be ethically better off sending his child to a private school that he paid for himself; and regardless but more to the point.....he very likely paid for so many children that are strangers to him for them to be educated at a public school that they "owe" him. At a minimum gratitude and admiration.... rather than the jealousy and antagonism which frequently results from political agendas on the far left.
Epistemology, ontology and metaphysics simply collapsed into or were mooted by science. Ethics and morality collapsed into sociology and psychology. Only political philosophy and logic, remain worthwhile pursuits.
Superb discussion. They had to cut it off too soon. Please have them in again!
Great discussion, thanks.
Quick question... under philosophical naturalism, wherein everything physical is simply explained by random physical processes, what is the difference between a chocolate bunny and a human? Oh yeah.. what is the difference between destroying the chocolate bunny and the human? Thanks.
Random isn't really right, especially if one holds a necessitarian view. The difference for some might just purely be the difference of mereological simples arranged chocolate Bunny wise vs arranged human wise. They might say their just is a preference (stance dependent) to protect one over the other; for which they'd likely appeal to evolutionary processes/selective pressures that explain the commonality among other agents.
They won't have some extrinsic notion of what should be valued, but rather they likely cash out the internal values as dispositions towards things we detect with agency vs inanimate concreta. So the difference you'd be looking for just isn't in their view, and that could favor them on simplicity if they can explain all the data equally or better. Obviously there are several objections to raise on this view so that's not to say it's true but your attitude seems to be concerned with consequences, which is irrelevant to the position, unless the consequence is some type of logical inconsistency
If anyone is tempted to run out and purchase Rosenberg's book in the hope of learning 'how to live without illusion'; I would recommend reading Umberto Eco's 'Kant and the platypus' first! :-)
What was it Kant said about being purposely, purposeless?
You are thinking of a movie line. God's sense of humour. Dogma.
I just checked the radioactive dumpster
It's everywhere
Yeah
I hate the 20th century too
Why would you choose church? They are all over armies. Choose witches
Just finished K&P and loved it. Loved this talk, too!
I think, were one to read Critique of the Gotha Program, one would support, rather than a social democracy or something "progressive liberal" rather than "conservative liberal", a scientific socialist (communist) goal. The moral arguments for communism are not the only ones. For me, going from capitalism to communism is an engineering matter. The profit motive is not a sustainable motive, and is not even the true motive for production and innovation. Flourishing is. "Why care about flourishing?" is as meaningful a question as "why be neurotypical?"
That political jibe about the rich factory owner was incredibly weak and illogical. He doesn't "owe" you anything for forcing him to send his child to public school...... in fact he would be ethically better off sending his child to a private school that he paid for himself; and regardless but more to the point.....he very likely paid for so many children that are strangers to him for them to be educated at a public school that they "owe" him. At a minimum gratitude and admiration.... rather than the jealousy and antagonism which frequently results from political agendas on the far left.
enjoyed it
Epistemology, ontology and metaphysics simply collapsed into or were mooted by science. Ethics and morality collapsed into sociology and psychology. Only political philosophy and logic, remain worthwhile pursuits.
Gibberish.