Reddit reviews Moral Minds: The Nature of Right and Wrong (P.S.)
We found 4 Reddit comments about Moral Minds: The Nature of Right and Wrong (P.S.). Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Thanks for responding. You and I disagree, and I've been trying to find a way to justify my own floating classification system, hence my questions for you. I consider myself to be a moral person (also an atheist), and I believe that "murder", when classified as such, is wrong, but I do not believe that killing is wrong in all cases.
There's a fantastic book out there called Moral Minds, which deals with how moral dilemmas are viewed all across the world, and points to a universal moral system which is hard wired in the same way Chomsky et al claimed humans had a "universal grammar".
http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Minds-Nature-Right-Wrong/dp/006078072X
Fascinating stuff.
If you're also interested in more contemporary study of morality, there is "Moral Minds" by Marc Hauser. And I heard a lot about Jonathan Haidt's book "The Righteous Mind" when it came out, though I still haven't read it.
We are naturally moral beings or read Moral Minds: The Nature of Right and Wrong
>But that lesser evil is supremely more wicked than if he simply controlled everyone with puppet strings.
What?
> And you clearly didn't watch the entire video if you think the goodness in the world can't be explained by the EG.
Yup, I did watch the entire thing; if you think I missed some important bit tell what that is.
I already gave you reasons as to why your argument fails; I don't think you addressed that.
>A robot that goes around raping people isn't really evil,
Really? What are the reasons you can give that would make one conclude that a rape victim wouldn't think the programmer of the robot that raped her wasn't evil?
I see no difference in the evil whether it is done freely or not.
>being that raped of his own free choice is truly evil
Can you show any research that supports this claim that "freewill evil" is truly evil and "non-freewill" evil is not? Your entire argument relies on this being correct.
Also the EG could simply delude people into thinking that had freewill, thus the EG would have whatever benefits you think he gets from that, as well as being able to max out the evil both quantitatively and qualitatively.
Then of course the EG could convince people that they are innocent and the punish them; he gets all the all the benefits of freewill without actually having it and any resulting good that might be done.
https://www.amazon.com/Moral-Minds-Nature-Right-Wrong/dp/006078072X