(January 12, 2018 at 2:43 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote:(January 12, 2018 at 6:48 am)DLJ Wrote: Nope. Not getting over it. Getting into it has led me to my current hypothesis regarding the reason why 'the morality question' has not yet been resolved... and the ideas I've been formulating over the last year as to what morality really is and what it's for.
Okay, fine. Point taken. As far as metaethical discussions are concerned, what you say makes sense. And let's also forget what motivates a dog. Motivations are beside the point.
This is the point: child splashing in water. You would feel "compelled" to save him, right? You could do it, right? Nobody is saying you must, but it is possible for you to save him.
Regardless of what you think your obligations are, if there is a certain something motivating you to save that drowning child, why doesn't that same something motivate you to save a starving child?
If motivations are beside point, why are you asking what motivates me (or one) to save a drowning child and/or save a starving child?
Anyway, I think the calculation goes like this...
Empathy = Affinity x Proximity
The PURPOSE of life is to replicate our DNA ................. (from Darwin)
The MEANING of life is the experience of living ... (from Frank Herbert)
The VALUE of life is the legacy we leave behind ..... (from observation)
The MEANING of life is the experience of living ... (from Frank Herbert)
The VALUE of life is the legacy we leave behind ..... (from observation)