Simon Paynton

I think that’s brilliant Reg.  I’m not sure about Bayesian thinking though – it seems to repackage “what’s possible” as “based on what’s already the case” – not allowing in new ideas.

Strega wrote:

Regarding wishing we could all see each other as equals, that’s not how humans evolved. We are an instinctive tribal species, and there’s always “the enemy” somewhere to fight. If you’ve got no-one to fight, you’ll lose your fighting people.

You see it in football in Europe. Each team has a particular nemesis team. We love compet…

[Read more]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:

What a real-life ‘trolley problem’ reveals about morality.

This is very interesting, and shows what I always said: there is usually no single right or wrong answer to a moral question, but a number of right or wrong answers, one for each value that comes into play.  So, something can be right in *this* way but wron…[Read more]

@robert – why were those things done?  For what reasons?

jakelafort wrote:

In any event as long as it can be established that the onset of transexualism is biologically based we take out the free will BS and that diminishes societal condemnation of trans people.

If people chose to be trans, rather than being born that way – so what?  It’s a harmless thing in itself, and not like molesting children,…[Read more]

I don’t think someone needs a “female brain” to feel like they are female.  Who knows where gender identity resides?  The body is a complex system.  Biological sex is one thing.  Psychological and social gender identity can be separate from that.

Where’s the relationship between being trans, and being gay?  Is there one?  How would that even be defined?

jakelafort wrote:

On a hunch Simon will regard this experiment as relevant to his ideas about morality as they relate to evolution. Either way it is interesting.

https://www.jpost.com/science/science-around-the-world/article-834805

That is interesting.  The little ants can solve a collective lifting/navigation problem better than humans.  They a…[Read more]

_Robert_ wrote:

I disagree. One can go from happiness to being distraught in a millisecond, without the state of things changing at all.

Maybe you can call it a mood.

_Robert_ wrote:

Yeah, and this is also why some say we need a god…watching, looking, keeping score.

We’re all monitored and evaluated the entire time, by ourselves and everybody who knows us.  There’s a big eye watching us all the time, and it’s called the human race.

_Robert_ wrote:

however for those who only make good choices for recognition or some other form of payback you might say the ends justify the means. It is still weak morality, IMHO.

Some people say that something good done for its own sake is the only kind of real virtue.

Simon Paynton wrote:

I think the task is to come up with alternatives to utilitarianism, consequentialism etc., which are an intuitive way in but don’t actually really go anywhere in the real world. A good alternative is morality as collaboration – both what happens within the collaboration, and its goal, are subjects for morality.

What is nee…[Read more]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:

…We need emotions and consequences to govern us morally. Rationality can guide us up some weird paths……

I would suggest the converse of that is true.

All three together is ideal.

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:

The Categorical Imperative could be considered a foundational principle of morality. It is grounded in the belief that moral actions must be guided by rationality and universalizable principles, rather than emotions or consequences. I don’t really see what it wrong with that.

That sounds good, but there’s a lot w…[Read more]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:

Group Selection: Groups with cooperative, moral members tend to survive and thrive better, promoting the evolution of moral behavior.

Ethical Frameworks: Philosophical doctrines like Kant’s categorical imperative or utilitarianism guide moral actions through reasoned principles.

These are flat-out wrong.  Beyond th…[Read more]