Samantha

jakelafort wrote:
Is there such a thing, a default human morality, that is innate? Or are we hairy apes so malleable in our beliefs and behavior that there is no such thing as an accurate representation of human morality?

Morality appears to arise in pursuing joint goals.  Each evolved joint goal, together with an evolved method of achieving it,…[Read more]

Unseen wrote:
the idea that there is some cosmic, universal, absolute, undeniable, provable ethical system or even individual ethical facts (“It is always wrong to…” “One must always…”) would require an appeal to a cosmic rulesmaker. A deity, in other words.

I think you’re right, that’s the only way it makes sense.  Because God says so.  However…[Read more]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
Ethics has no foundation.

In my opinion this is an interesting attempt to justify moral realism without any evidence or reason.  The author, Andrew Sepielli, ends by invoking the difficulty of how we can know anything.  Hmm.  The problem he has is that he has an irrational attachment to the idea, for no good ap…[Read more]

It sounds like the guy didn’t know he was hurting people by ghosting them, when he should have done, because he was.  Maybe British people are used to it, it’s normal to them, so they expect it.

He had a failure of empathy (cognitive perspective-taking) driven by a lack of empathic concern (caring).  He should have cared enough about someone he w…[Read more]

Davis wrote:
In this scenario, are you maybe doing something rude but not morally wrong? Or is it wrong?

It’s reasonable to politely ask to be treated as a human being, and not an ant or a fly.  If nothing else, it might improve the other person’s behaviour in the future.

In my version of evolutionary ethics, ghosting would come under the category of “unnecessary harm”.  Most of the time, people could take the time to let someone down gently and using words rather than ghosting.  So they don’t need to be causing this harm by ghosting.  They are able to give benefit rather than harm, and what’s more, they have a re…[Read more]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
Philosophers have always been concerned with the question of how best to philosophize.

Is philosophy really too specialised?  I see mathematics, science and philosophy as three parts of the same thing – the systematic search for knowledge.  We would’t say that mathematics and science are too academic and s…[Read more]

“Wrestling with moral relativism.”

I think the author has it a little bit wrong about progressives.

One side of the argument celebrates cultural diversity and unites this with an emphasis on the socially constructed nature of values. This is the outlook popularly associated with postmodernism, identity politics, and the rejection of universalist…

[Read more]

Following the verdict, the lawyer who headed the effort trumpeted his victory: “Freedom wins again,” he tweeted. But freedom to what? Freedom to suffer from preventable illnesses. Or to be hospitalized. Or to die. Or to transmit viruses to those who cannot be successfully vaccinated.

This is true.  It’s the freedom to drown in bullshit.  But freed…[Read more]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
World of Woo: A study into ‘truth relativism’.

I think it’s really interesting.

People who believe the truth is subjective and individual are more likely to believe conspiracy theories, and to hold onto their conspiratorial beliefs even when faced with real-world evidence and facts that contradict their con…

[Read more]

jakelafort wrote:
As one might expect it is not required of a plaintiff to demonstrate the PARTICULAR harm resulting from the negligence, only that some harm of that nature might ensue.

In other words, that they were acting recklessly without due regard to the right thing to do.