Suppose there is a switch, currently set to OFF, and it is morally desirable for this switch to be flipped to ON.
Let A equal B.
It seems that—all else being equal, and assuming no other consequences or exceptional conditions which were not specified—value flows backward along arrows of causality.
B equals A.
Let A equal B followed by B equals A is not a convincing argument.
… how do you know that the procedure, ‘Do whatever Emperor Ming says’ is not the entirety of should-ness?
Let Trevor equal Emperor Ming and this holds for egoism.
By representing right-ness as an attribute of objects, you can recruit a whole previously evolved system that reasons about the attributes of objects.
… is a 748-word excerpt from a 1979 speech by Karl Popper that has insights into sources of knowledge (including morals), the role of tradition, the lack of a blank slate, why we should not over-clarify, and much more.
Suppose there is a switch, currently set to OFF, and it is morally desirable for this switch to be flipped to ON.
Let A equal B.
It seems that—all else being equal, and assuming no other consequences or exceptional conditions which were not specified—value flows backward along arrows of causality.
B equals A.
Sorry, what precisely are you calling A and B here?
Let Trevor equal Emperor Ming and this holds for egoism.
Let A equal B.
B equals A.
Let A equal B followed by B equals A is not a convincing argument.
Let Trevor equal Emperor Ming and this holds for egoism.
http://tinyurl.com/kpsourcesofknowledge1979
… is a 748-word excerpt from a 1979 speech by Karl Popper that has insights into sources of knowledge (including morals), the role of tradition, the lack of a blank slate, why we should not over-clarify, and much more.
Sorry, what precisely are you calling A and B here?
What is the “this” that holds for egoism?