But what if morality is all about the welfare of brains
That’s irrelevant. Welfare being about brains doesn’t make my brain omniscient about yours. I’m not omniscient about neruroscience, either.
I think Harris would say that once you accept human welfare is the goal you have crossed the is-ought gap and
For some value of “crossed”. What does “accept” mean? Not proved, explain, justified, anyway. .If you accept “welfare is about brains” as an unproven axiom, you can derive oughts from ises ..within that particular system.
The problem, of course, is that you can construct any number of other ethical systems with different but equally arbitrary premises. So you are not getting convergence on objective truth.
That’s irrelevant. Welfare being about brains doesn’t make my brain omniscient about yours. I’m not omniscient about neruroscience, either.
For some value of “crossed”. What does “accept” mean? Not proved, explain, justified, anyway. .If you accept “welfare is about brains” as an unproven axiom, you can derive oughts from ises ..within that particular system.
The problem, of course, is that you can construct any number of other ethical systems with different but equally arbitrary premises. So you are not getting convergence on objective truth.