0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The idea that morality just exists to enforce social norms is rooted in moral antirealism, the idea that there simply are no moral facts. But why believe this is true?
We begin our unit on ethics with a look at metaethics. Hank explains three forms of moral realism – moral absolutism, and cultural relativism, including the difference between descriptive and normative cultural relativism – and moral subjectivism, which is a form of moral antirealism. Finally, we’ll introduce the concept of an ethical theory.
Many comedians deliberately annoy politicians. Should they be punished?
There is no and cannot be, if we are not captured by AI and impose its power and one moral code on all. Everything is relative.
Quote from: alancalverd on 26/05/2021 23:22:57Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 26/05/2021 17:35:53My point is that without a universal terminal goal, there is no universal moral standard, and we can't say if a moral rule is universally good or bad. And there being no possibility of a UTG, there is no UMS. How do you proof that there is no possibility of universal terminal goal?Without universal moral standard, we can't say if any moral rule is better or worse than any other moral rules. You can't say that ancient Jewish moral rules are better or worst than Nazi's moral rules, nor with modern secular democratic moral rules. Every action would be equally justified by their own moral standard. Jewish' genocide would be justified by their tribal moral standard. Nazi's holocaust would be justified by their racist/facist moral standard. ISIS' actions would be justified by their theological moral standard. Even Ted Bundy's serial rapes and murders would be justified by hedonistic moral standard. Charles Whitman's mass shooting would be justified by nihilistic moral standard. They are equally good by relativistic moral standard.You can only say that your moral standard is better than the others by showing that yours is more aligned with the universal moral standard, at least in some specific aspects.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 26/05/2021 17:35:53My point is that without a universal terminal goal, there is no universal moral standard, and we can't say if a moral rule is universally good or bad. And there being no possibility of a UTG, there is no UMS.
My point is that without a universal terminal goal, there is no universal moral standard, and we can't say if a moral rule is universally good or bad.
Inevitably, life on Earth will come to an end, whether by climate disaster, cataclysmic war, or the death of the sun in a few billion years. What do we do about it?Watch the Q&A: //www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2caS7MX7tkGet Christopher's Book: https://geni.us/fELYSIn this talk, Christopher E Mason argues we have a moral duty to explore other planets and solar systems. He envisages the same capacity for ingenuity that has enabled us to build rockets and land on other planets can be applied to redesigning biology so that we can sustainably inhabit those planets. And he will lay out a 500-year plan for undertaking the massively ambitious project of reengineering human genetics for life on other worlds.Christopher E. Mason is a geneticist and computational biologist who has been a Principal Investigator and Co-investigator of several NASA missions and Planetary Protection projects. He is Associate Professor at Weill Cornell Medicine, with affiliate appointments at the Meyer Cancer Center, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, the Information Society Project (ISP) at Yale Law School, and the Consortium for Space Genetics at Harvard Medical School. His book The Next 500 Years: Engineering Life to Reach Other Worlds will be published in April 2021 by MIT Press.This talk was recorded on 20th April 2021
we have a moral duty to explore other planets and solar systems. He envisages the same capacity for ingenuity that has enabled us to build rockets and land on other planets.....
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 01/10/2021 11:48:28we have a moral duty to explore other planets and solar systems. He envisages the same capacity for ingenuity that has enabled us to build rockets and land on other planets..... That's arrogance, not evidence of a moral duty. Having screwed up a perfectly habitable planet, killed off most of the other species on it, and invented politics and religion as excuses for killing each other, it would be best for the earth and the rest of the universe if homo sapiens was eliminated, not encouraged to infect other planets..
This video introduces some of the recent philosophical work on misanthropy. The third part is based on the work of Ian James Kidd, particularly his article "Varieties of Philosophical Misanthropy". See also Norlock's "Perpetual Struggle" and Halwani's "Misanthropy and Virtue". The notion of secular theodicies comes from Benatar's book "The Human Predicament", though his focus is on pessimism in general rather than misanthropy specifically.0:00 - Philosophical misanthropy3:24 - Secular theodicies23:50 - Living with misanthropy
It looks like you're a misanthropist.
I love and appreciate a few of my fellow beings who really do good things for others and various bits of the planet, but the fact is that all living things convert their environment to toxins: excretion is one of the defining characteristics of life.
Several excellent products are labelled "not for export". I think homo sapiens is a potentially excellent product, but should not be exported from this planet.
Have you seen a terrarium that have been running for decades supporting lives isolated from outside world?In principle, there's nothing to prevent humans from building suitable size terrarium for humans.
No one I know claims that humans in current form are perfect. But we can use our knowledge and wisdom to make continuous improvement.Physically, human body is not suitable for outer space, nor most extraterrestrial worlds. But there's no requirement for us to go there naked.
in the effort to achieve the universal terminal goal.