3 ms·
He's thinking philosophically, not politically (trying to influence people). We should be quite free to think and discuss things in an objective way without hav
by Hondor 10y ago
He's thinking philosophically, not politically (trying to influence people). We should be quite free to think and discuss things in an objective way without having to continuously show that we agree with contemporary morals.
It might turn out that such a line of reasoning leads to the useless conclusion of "nothing is wrong" but it's certainly worth trying nonetheless. What we do know is that our current set of morals is somewhat arbitrary and could easily be full of "evil" things that make us no better than slaver owners. We just don't know because everyone agrees with us.
- Trundle 10y ago>He's thinking philosophically He's not thinking, he's typing. What he's typing is not a stream of consciousness nor shared with only himself, so he's obviously looking for some form of discussion (whether that's primarily because he wants to influence others is hard to say). However he's doing it while being combative and insulting. If that's what he wants then I'm here to provide. >We should be quite free to think and discuss things in an objective way without having to continuously show that we agree with contemporary morals. I agree completely however taking up this cause in the comment section of a tech forum, without putting any substantial argument down first, and then resorting to calling people brainwashed is a poor way to go about it. In fact by doing so that seems to be him saying he not only doesn't agree with contemporary morals but looks down on those that do. >What we do know is that our current set of morals is somewhat arbitrary and could easily be full of "evil" things that make us no better than slaver owners. I acknowledged in the post you're replying to that the conventional source of morality is intuitive emotion not well thought out concepts.