3 ms·
I would expect commenters here to have better reading comprehension skills. I explicitly allowed that one could have ethics based on arbitrary consensus. That
by User23 7y ago
I would expect commenters here to have better reading comprehension skills. I explicitly allowed that one could have ethics based on arbitrary consensus.
That said, your discomfort is natural. After all, if the foundation of ethics is purely natural, then what is it? Logic perhaps? What logic tells us that murder is wrong, when logically murder is sometimes advantageous? Is it science then? What science tells us that rape is wrong, when evolution tells us fitness is propagating genes? Then is it aesthetics? Are goodness and beauty the same? Or is there an objective standard of right and wrong that isn't dependent on any human being's whims or self-interest? If so, what is its source?
- jacquesm 7y agoI would suggest that rather than critiquing the reading skills of the people commenting on HN to start off from the position that maybe what you wrote was not un-ambiguous. The way you write is suggestive (including the reply you wrote) and that is why I asked for your clarification.
- User23 7y agoIt’s revealing that you offer nothing but (feigned) incomprehension and quibbles. You can easily make your point by offering a purely natural foundation for ethics that isn’t just the arbitrary desires of whatever prestige group makes the rules. Want to try being substantive?