Mike Horvath <mik### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 3/11/2017 7:19 PM, Shay wrote:
> > It's certainly not entirely scientific.
> >
> > Can you tell me--using capital-R Reason alone--the difference between
> > "beneficial" and "good" (as in "good vs. evil)?
> >
> >
>
> I think there are some things that could fit into both categories:
>
> 1. maximize well-being
> 2. minimize suffering
> 3. ???
>
> These are things social animals value, either consciously or by
> instinctual behavior. Hard to say whether animals like sharks care about
> stuff like this, though. Some sharks rear live young IIRC. It's pretty
> common for mammals/birds to feel lonely.
>
>
> Mike

You're just mixing a salad out of mathematical terms and your own moral
intuitions.

This isn't a bad thing. There's a lot to be said for moral intuition. From a
materialist[1], evolutionary perspective, ignoring one's moral intuition is
equivalent to walking around with one's eyes closed.

So, you can make a compelling argument based on moral intuition, but you can't
make absolutist claims based on it. In other words, you can't be a snob about
it.

[1] Materialist as in "believing the brain is the sole source of consciousness
(i.e., no soul)."

Post a reply to this message