3 ms·
I'm not going to explain my whole moral system here and derive all the consequences out of it relevant to this scenario. Maybe if you point out what aspect of
by akvadrako 10y ago
I'm not going to explain my whole moral system here and derive all the consequences out of it relevant to this scenario.
Maybe if you point out what aspect of my claim you take issue with, I could answer it briefly.
- brokenmachine 10y agoWell I've already said that I think it's naive to think there could be an absolute morality, and I've also given you a specific example of a situation where I suspect your moral system probably falls down. You've just declined to offer any explanation of what your system would propose in that situation. So I guess the aspect of your claim that I doubt is the mere existence of your self-consistent and absolute moral system at all?
- akvadrako 10y agoOkay, there are 2 parts: 1. The consistency: it's just one rule, so it should be able to drive decisions without much ambiguity. 2. The "absoluteness": if it's unique as the only workable self-consistent moral system, that should suffice. Perhaps there are others, though I suspect they have one of these features: a. they drive equivalent decisions FAPP b. they are unstable and eventually won't be able to continue; either the hosts die or move onto another system I admit I haven't proven this to be the case, but I suspect it's true, or at least something along these lines. Certainly the opposite hasn't been proven.
- brokenmachine 10y ago>1. The consistency: it's just one rule ...Which is?