Timeline for Is there a set of basic moral "rules", outside of religion or culture, that all intelligent life might theoretically agree on?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 22, 2016 at 3:13 | comment | added | user16869 | "The majority is always sane" - from Ringworld, I think. Something by Larry Niven anyway... | |
| Jan 1, 2015 at 9:46 | comment | added | AndrewC | Meritocratic is on the basis of the strength of the idea - you would decide this by discussing a lot. Appeal to authority is based on the source of the idea, you would not discuss the idea itself. Democracy is based on the popularity of the idea - no need for discussion, just list and vote immediately. | |
| Jan 1, 2015 at 2:45 | comment | added | user2170 | @AndrewC: This is the nut of it, isn't it? What's "meritocratic"? You're appealing to authority to decide what has merit, unless your appeal is to the majority. And yes I hope the majority share my view, but I do not assume. To be frank, if the majority wants a system that endangers me, then I will protect myself, but otherwise so be it. I'm no more important than anyone else. This is the point: if there is no appeal to authority, what is there? It has to be appeal to the majority, because what is your justification for overriding the majority? | |
| Jan 1, 2015 at 2:24 | comment | added | AndrewC | Ah, so not a meritocratic ranking but a democratic one. And you of course hope that the majority share your love of democratic morality. | |
| Jan 1, 2015 at 2:02 | comment | added | user2170 | @AndrewC: Yes, but it's even more radical than that. If we cannot appeal to authority, we must essentially resort to radical democracy. It ultimately has to be the mass of overall opinion that prevails. By the way, that means that if the majority seems "immoral" to you, we may have to let that burn itself out. I think my position basically results in a utilitarian view, but my point is that we need to let all the other arguments be vented. | |
| Jan 1, 2015 at 1:48 | comment | added | AndrewC | I think I get you: In a search for a culturally-neutral and religion-neutral morality, you're pointing out it's particularly important to be wary of the opinions of people in positions of authority and exclude religiously-motivated arguments, since a deity is the ultimate authority figure, and of course you're likely to fail at religiously-neutral test if you allow religious leaders to dominate the debate. Instead moral arguments should be evaluated on their merits. | |
| Jan 1, 2015 at 1:26 | history | edited | user2170 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
More clarification
|
| Jan 1, 2015 at 1:08 | comment | added | user2170 | I edited my entry a bit. The point is that my views are not better for the reason that I am making them. I'm no more or less important than anyone else. Lots of arguments come from claims of a priori privilege, which I think we need to reject. The ideas are what matter, not the person suggesting them. So good comment, hope it led to decent clarification. | |
| Jan 1, 2015 at 1:06 | history | edited | user2170 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Clarified the premise
|
| Jan 1, 2015 at 0:54 | comment | added | AndrewC | Isn't this a little self-contradictory? The view that you're asserting over all others is the view that you oughtn't assert your your views over all others. It's a little like "the only rule is that there are no rules" or "there are zero absolutes". I agree with respecting others, but I reserve the right to tell someone that, for example, their baby-eating tolerance is a terrible viewpoint. The absence of agreement does not make all viewpoints equally valid. | |
| Dec 31, 2014 at 2:01 | review | First posts | |||
| Dec 31, 2014 at 2:21 | |||||
| Dec 31, 2014 at 1:56 | history | answered | user2170 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |