I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make. I don’t really know where we’re heading to let’s make this a little bit more detailed.
I tried to make some solid foundation about nutrition, and is that the human body needs abcdefgxyz to maintain itself. The most important thing about it is that it kicks ideologies out, because we now have a foundation we can go to in case we’re wondering if something is “healthy”*.
You made the point that it’s more complicated than a bare metal theory and you’re correct, but the point was that we now know where to go. I’d like you to expand on that, too.
I don’t think it’s such a terrible theory. The “Consequentialism doesn’t tell you what should you care about.” implies we’re going back to the ideologies I was trying to kick out.
*healthy is a grey area term. Sometimes I think it means it will boost your health. Sometimes it’s supposed to help you with body functions. Sometimes it means that x is better than y. I think we should clear this word up too because it’s annoying.
because we now have a foundation we can go to in case we’re wondering if something is “healthy”*.
Well, kinda. Health is a function of many arguments, nutrition being one of them. The problem is that the arguments to the health function are not independent—you don’t get the luxury of changing just food and knowing that nothing else changed.
To give an example, I know some people who would consider being restricted to Soylent and nothing else to be cruel and unusual punishment, to the degree that the resulting unhappiness and stress will impact their health.
implies we’re going back to the ideologies I was trying to kick out.
We’re going back not to ideologies, but to values. You can’t kick out values and be left with anything useful.
No, that is very much not it.
Human relationship with food is MUCH more complicated than “I need a set of nutrients to enter my body”.
That’s the difference between the practical and the theoretical.
I just think it would be useful to know what we should be aiming for instead of walking on water.
If the difference is that big you need a better theory.
Isn’t that just consequentialism’s weak point? Saying is easier than doing.
“That’s it” doesn’t follow in any way from consequentialism.
Consequentialism doesn’t tell you what should you care about.
I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make. I don’t really know where we’re heading to let’s make this a little bit more detailed.
I tried to make some solid foundation about nutrition, and is that the human body needs abcdefgxyz to maintain itself. The most important thing about it is that it kicks ideologies out, because we now have a foundation we can go to in case we’re wondering if something is “healthy”*.
You made the point that it’s more complicated than a bare metal theory and you’re correct, but the point was that we now know where to go. I’d like you to expand on that, too.
I don’t think it’s such a terrible theory. The “Consequentialism doesn’t tell you what should you care about.” implies we’re going back to the ideologies I was trying to kick out.
*healthy is a grey area term. Sometimes I think it means it will boost your health. Sometimes it’s supposed to help you with body functions. Sometimes it means that x is better than y. I think we should clear this word up too because it’s annoying.
Well, kinda. Health is a function of many arguments, nutrition being one of them. The problem is that the arguments to the health function are not independent—you don’t get the luxury of changing just food and knowing that nothing else changed.
To give an example, I know some people who would consider being restricted to Soylent and nothing else to be cruel and unusual punishment, to the degree that the resulting unhappiness and stress will impact their health.
We’re going back not to ideologies, but to values. You can’t kick out values and be left with anything useful.