3 ms·
On the other hand, you're an evolved being with innate biases. There are solid natural reasons that most people share similar moral intuitions (read: emotions).
by jacoblyles 18y ago
On the other hand, you're an evolved being with innate biases. There are solid natural reasons that most people share similar moral intuitions (read: emotions). If these intuitions did not exist, there would be no axioms from which to deduce other moral actions.
Brooks' premise is naturalistic, that man is more complex than an avatar of pure reason. I think he's right.
- aaronasterling 18y agoHe just messes up and shows his ignorance/stupidity when he tries to say that "man is more complex then an avatar of pure reason" implies "the processes by which man was created are more than is understandable by pure reason". believe what you want but thats a shoddy piece of reasoning.
- astine 18y agoStrictly speaking, everything is more than is understandable by pure reason.
- aaronasterling 18y ago"everything" might be more then is understandable by pure reason, i have to give you that.
- koningrobot 18y agoHow so? Isn't it just a matter of having enough "reasoning power" and information? What do "everything" and "understandable" mean in this sentence?
- javert 18y ago"If these intuitions did not exist, there would be no axioms from which to deduce other moral actions." It is mistaken to deduce morality from emotions, because (for one thing) emotions are largely a product of random chance. Emotions haven't been "validated." Rather, we should deduce morality from reason and reality. We /ought/ to do what /is/ good for human life. (This isn't self evident, but I do think it's true.)