(September 6, 2016 at 7:41 pm)Gemini Wrote: Given that subjective preferences are mediated by objectively measurable neural configurations, I think it's premature to declare morality subjectivity.
Let's assume that "objectively true" means there's an isomorphic map-territory relationship (correspondence theory of truth). If someone empathizes with my mental state--which is to say, simulates my sentiments by experiencing (via mirror neurons) what I'm experiencing, that they have true information about a part of reality (me).
This is not only objectively true, but it entails that the empathizing person will not cause me gratuitous suffering. In order to justify causing other people suffering, we have to shut off our capacity for empathy, by demonizing people, or regarding them as animals, or insane, etc. I think that when you cash it out, this amounts to the kind of moral ontology you get from contractariansim, due to the fact that determining values by emulating the mental states of others via mirror mirror neurons is practically identical to determining values by rational agents behind a veil of ignorance.
When was it established that morality inherently entails minimizing suffering? Or that acts of capriciousness and prejudice aren't moral?
I am John Cena's hip-hop album.
