(October 6, 2012 at 7:46 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote:(October 6, 2012 at 7:12 pm)whateverist Wrote: I think there is something gone wrong in losing sight of the fact that we too are animals. I agree that saying we are animals should not endorse any and all actions for which we can find an analogue in the natural world. But if you fail to take into account that our rational minds are an add-on to a mammalian organism, you may fall prey to another fallacy: thinking that our rational capacity should be as impartial as that of a computer when in fact we are embodied animals with emotional and instinctual layers as well.
Which is again, taking an is and turning it into an ought.
I don't see it. At most, I think I'm taking an "is possible" and granting myself permission to act. I insist on no general ought's for anyone else. But I do choose to cut myself considerable slack when it comes to making room for spontaneity.
The unconsidered life may not be worth living but then again neither would be a life in which each and every action must be morally justified. I'm a mortal animal who refuses to spend every finite minute of my existence weighing the pros and cons before I ever act. If you feel that I shouldn't do so, the ought would seem to be coming from you, not me.
