(Without knowing, I’m guessing you’re a Christian at 5:1, that you’re a theist at 10:1)
I dont think such a society is more virtuous, it is just a society where the bar is lower. The flipside is resource-rich societies where it is easier to do the right thing because there are more resources.
On the contrary, using less resources to satisfy yourself and others, all the other resources would be free to create more fully satisfied and happy beings. If you’re saving a lot of money and not buying yourself gadgets, that increases your ability to effect change, not diminishes it.
The funny thing is that if one participant in a discussion makes clear statements, and the other reads them carefully, there isn’t the slightest need for that kind of guesswork.
(Without knowing, I’m guessing you’re a Christian at 5:1, that you’re a theist at 10:1)
On the contrary, using less resources to satisfy yourself and others, all the other resources would be free to create more fully satisfied and happy beings. If you’re saving a lot of money and not buying yourself gadgets, that increases your ability to effect change, not diminishes it.
Why? My approach is explictly non-euthyphric. However, I notice you keep arguing with me as though I am a theist..
I am trying to distinguish between two sides of morlality—doing the right thing, and Virtue (AKA wanting to do the right thing).
Quick, quick! Make a bet that his stereotypical assumption is wrong!
It, um, is wrong, right?
The funny thing is that if one participant in a discussion makes clear statements, and the other reads them carefully, there isn’t the slightest need for that kind of guesswork.