tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22093933.post3994750485148099547..comments2008-01-16T19:57:34.026-06:00Derichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16617204535017208765noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22093933.post-19010917357602235852008-01-16T19:12:00.000-06:002008-01-16T19:12:00.000-06:00I find it hard to believe anyone would say hedonism and organized religion are "good things" even in a world without moral facts. Hedonism is too short-sighted as a pleasure-seeking process, and religion is too far-sightened.Phlegmhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00668815554095096297noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22093933.post-74028337245188107272008-01-16T09:27:00.000-06:002008-01-16T09:27:00.000-06:00Nice, <BR/>I can't wait. <BR/><BR/>I also really liked the piece.<BR/>Especially the term "Moral Illusions". There are a lot of illusions, biases et cetera that are created by the mind.<BR/><BR/>Makes it very difficult to believe anything the brain produces.Arjan Haringwww.instanthappiness.nlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22093933.post-55251720915950067842008-01-16T05:38:00.000-06:002008-01-16T05:38:00.000-06:00Yes, I almost did a post on it alongside this one, but will wait till early next week. It is a great article, but he makes a few statements that I have to take issue with.Derichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16617204535017208765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22093933.post-67396898299812252472008-01-16T04:43:00.000-06:002008-01-16T04:43:00.000-06:00Deric,<BR/><BR/>Did you read the fresh new article by Steven Pinker on Morality?<BR/><BR/>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.htmlArjan Haringwww.instanthappiness.nlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22093933.post-27857849729824556612008-01-15T10:45:00.000-06:002008-01-15T10:45:00.000-06:00I'm not sure you are actually disagreeing with him, the issue might be the context in which we are are considering 'truth value.' <BR/><BR/>I think his key statement is at the end: <BR/>"in a more rigorous and serious sense, there is just no ethical knowledge to be had. We are alone. And if that is true, all we have to go by are the contingent moral intuitions evolution has hard-wired into our emotional self-model."<BR/><BR/>In terms of those evolutionary outcomes, your "It is wrong.." statement has relative truth value. It seems to me he is talking about a philosopher's 'absolute' truth values.Derichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16617204535017208765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22093933.post-75357010889226875352008-01-15T09:02:00.000-06:002008-01-15T09:02:00.000-06:00Wow, what a depressing view of the universe. Moral sentences have no truth value? So the sentence: "It is wrong to torture and then murder a sentient being for amusement alone" has no truth value? I think I'll go out on a limb and disagree with that one. Metzinger says the universe doesn't inform us about morality. But the universe doesn't "inform" us about anything. To attempt to learn truths we use our faculties of reason, and try to minimize bias, to determine the nature of things. It's not like the universe handed us Boyle's Law or Special Relativity on a platter. <BR/><BR/>So I'm sorry...I think this is an awful little essay. I reject both his premise and his arguments.derekjameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02776917750757825408noreply@blogger.com