4 ms·
Non-religious moral philosophies, at their core, do generally try to optimize for reducing harm and promoting helpfulness wherever possible. Even if one does n
by meowface 12y ago
Non-religious moral philosophies, at their core, do generally try to optimize for reducing harm and promoting helpfulness wherever possible.
Even if one does not subscribe to a specific moral framework, or a group of people subscribe to different ones, there are still some activities that they can agree are immoral. That's why it's okay for vegetarians/vegans to think that something is wrong even if they may not have developed it in the context of an existing moral philosophy. To say that something is immoral is merely to say that "I have subjective reason to believe that [something] is causing more unnecessary harm than good for other lifeforms".
- bane 12y agoI wouldn't lump all non-religious moral philosophies into the same group like that. There are plenty that do not optimize for reducing harm or promoting helpfulness. Many seek to ensure fairness or equality. Others legitimize strength. Most of the ones I'm aware of set humans as preeiminent to the moral construct and seek to find ways to maximize the human condition. FYI, Nietzsche was the king of non-religious philosophers in the early 20th century and was interested in neither of those things. Rand's Objectivism is probably the second best known and it too has no interest in either of those things.