Timeline for Is immorality just irrationality?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 13, 2018 at 22:07 | comment | added | user30898 | Perhaps someone doing something immoral knows more than those who agreed upon what is moral. I think you'll find Anti-Villains and Anti-Heroes view altering. | |
| Mar 13, 2018 at 21:28 | comment | added | Patrick Stevens | Broadly speaking, epistemic rationality is about whether you're right about the world. Instrumental rationality is about how good you are at achieving your goals. Morality is about what you want from the world. They're all different, though depending on what you think the source of morality is, they could be linked to a greater or lesser extent. | |
| Mar 13, 2018 at 15:11 | history | protected | Philip Klöcking♦ | ||
| Mar 13, 2018 at 14:53 | answer | added | James Fredericks | timeline score: 1 | |
| Mar 13, 2018 at 14:29 | answer | added | Andrew | timeline score: 4 | |
| Mar 13, 2018 at 14:19 | answer | added | Ethan Scott | timeline score: 0 | |
| Mar 13, 2018 at 12:23 | comment | added | Onyz | @aml The Golden Rule is fundamentally flawed in a lot of ways... Not everyone wanting the same things being the biggest. | |
| Mar 13, 2018 at 1:12 | answer | added | jmmut | timeline score: 4 | |
| Mar 12, 2018 at 23:41 | comment | added | amI | ... 'morality' exists only in the framework of a 'society'. People will do whatever they can get away with, and the 'golden rule' is all one needs to coexist. Criminals make a 'rational' choice that is only proved irrational when they get caught. | |
| Mar 12, 2018 at 20:48 | vote | accept | riemann_lebesgue | ||
| Mar 12, 2018 at 19:52 | comment | added | Frank Hubeny | Haidt and Graham offer an alternative to rationality in moral foundations theory: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory Here there a multiple innate foundations that conflict with each other. Rationality is more useful as rationalization of decisions rather than as a way to find out what one should do. | |
| Mar 12, 2018 at 19:43 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackPhilosophy/status/973283343721811968 | ||
| Mar 12, 2018 at 19:32 | answer | added | Marc H. | timeline score: 6 | |
| Mar 12, 2018 at 19:24 | answer | added | Dan Anderson | timeline score: 5 | |
| Mar 12, 2018 at 19:23 | history | edited | riemann_lebesgue | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
clarification
|
| Mar 12, 2018 at 19:09 | comment | added | Geoffrey Thomas♦ | Someone in a normal state of mind - e.g. not in a panic, not drunk, not with attention-deficit disorder - who adds 1 +1 and produces 3 - is ignorant of arithmetic. Their mistake is one of ignorance, not of irrationality; they don't know the rules of arithmetic. If the parallel holds, then someone who lies, intentionally makes a false statement in order to deceive, is ignorant of the requirements of morality. Why should they be any more irrational than the calculator who produces 1 + 1 = 3 ? Ignorance and irrationality are different and unrelated defects. | |
| Mar 12, 2018 at 18:56 | answer | added | Chris Sunami | timeline score: 26 | |
| Mar 12, 2018 at 17:17 | review | First posts | |||
| Mar 13, 2018 at 2:02 | |||||
| Mar 12, 2018 at 17:15 | history | asked | riemann_lebesgue | CC BY-SA 3.0 |