FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 11:13 am
God no. The point of all this is that such methods don't apply very usefully to the fundamentals of ethical decision making. Heuristics and mimetics are vastly more applicable.
Look darling, that's a lot of wing flapping.
If society has ethical standards and and fundamental ethical decision making, then where did society inhabit its ethical standards from?
You sure started deducing from that premise without telling anybody how you acquired it.
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 11:13 am
In other words we mostly decide what to do by doing the similar things to what found worked for us before
You are confusing strategies with goals/values. Nobody mostly cured COVID-19 by doing what we did before.
If that worked there wouldn't be a pandemic and we wouldn't have had to use mRNA for the first time.
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 11:13 am
, and we get our values overwhelmingly by copying those around us.
And those you are copying your values from copied their values from... ?
It sure sounds like you are saying that our values propagate through the system beyond the control of any individual.
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 11:13 am
This explains how we ended up with a moral landscape that can't be rationally described without simply ignoring large and important sections.
Well make up your mind. Do you want to describe the land-scape or the decision-making that produces the landscape?
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 11:13 am
It's a jigsaw that only fits if you throw away half the pieces, and everyone who ever says they've completed it is trying to make you look away from the trash can.
No shit. Because it doesn't fit in a single mind. You don't have enough memory given the complexity of the system.
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 11:13 am
The most that you can get done with logic in these matters is to assess certain moral claims for consistency with other moral claims.
Horseshit. The most I can do is to do A/B testing on mRNA vaccines and compare the outcome of the two cohorts.
And to a non-idiot the better choice is obvious.
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 11:13 am
But the search for logical undergarments of the entire edifice has been a two thousand year snipe hunt, and if you want to kick off a two thousand year snipe hunt for empirical scientific foundations of what it means for an action to be morally right or wrong, well you were warned before you started, but you do you.
I don't want to do ANY of that. YOU want to do that and you are trying to make me want to do that.
I am outright saying it: Fuck the foundationalist pursuit.
And look! You've even contradicted yourself. What it means for an action to be morally right or wrong is learned empirically. By socialisation. And then one exercises some of their own judgment on the matter.
Ok idiot.