Devil's advocate for why ontology is meaningless and vacuous.

[Edwardo Piet]

I feel like a jerk now for being so impersonal

[Losty]

This thread is Klingon?

[Edwardo Piet]

Wow you just made me smile nicely Keep up the AF posting and I'll do the same!

ummm please

I haz going to kudos you loads because I wanna.

[LostLocke]

This thread is Klingon?

HIja'

[Gemini]

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.

[Joods]

You people use too many big words that dumb lil ol' me doesn't understand.

[ApeNotKillApe]

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?

[Edwardo Piet]

Fuck this thread.

[ApeNotKillApe]

Jeez, I was that bad, eh? I swear it was self-defense, the thread pulled a knife on me, I had to defend myself.

[Edwardo Piet]

Lol dude. Nah fuck this thread because I total overphilosophicated myself.