tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post6919494506750363314..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Carroll v. Harris: The Irrelevance of Definitions and DifferencesAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-84789445070342910232010-07-21T01:23:54.224-06:002010-07-21T01:23:54.224-06:00'Animals have a desire to have sex, to eat, to...'Animals have a desire to have sex, to eat, to drink, to be in a comfortable environment.' That is why humanity has an overpopulation crisis - simply because as a species we want everything for nothing.Beastinblackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16001553829217827228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-83352249515828661922010-05-24T12:11:09.609-06:002010-05-24T12:11:09.609-06:00Syndic
They refers to non-human animals . . . who...<b>Syndic</b><br /><br /><i>They</i> refers to non-human animals . . . who have no interest in "the well-being of conscious creatures" because they can't even perceive such a thing.<br /><br />It would be as easy for them to have an interest in "the chemical composition of Kupyer Belt Objects."Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-53213505040499164272010-05-24T09:50:49.882-06:002010-05-24T09:50:49.882-06:00Interestingly enough, Harris has responded to Carr...Interestingly enough, Harris has responded to Carroll and his other critics here - http://www.project-reason.org/newsfeed/item/moral_confusion_in_the_name_of_science3/.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-64383655539941055492010-05-24T07:49:27.713-06:002010-05-24T07:49:27.713-06:00You said: They have no interest in "the well-...You said: They have no interest in "the well-being of conscious creatures."<br /><br />What? That's false. I have interest in "the well-being of conscious creatures." So do most people. In fact, I'd go farther in saying that I have interest in "the well-being of non-conscious creatures." That is, creatures who have some form of awareness that's not consciousness.Syndicnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-36516345659872371572010-05-21T15:58:25.834-06:002010-05-21T15:58:25.834-06:00Josef,
Alonzo has a thought experiment detailed h...Josef,<br /><br />Alonzo has a thought experiment detailed here for why people are aiming to fulfill their desires and not their general happiness.<br /><br />http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2006/09/happiness-vs-desire-fulfillment.htmlAndyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14389298711813091852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-44216992118987578902010-05-21T12:01:53.935-06:002010-05-21T12:01:53.935-06:00> I think it's accurate to say something li...> I think it's accurate to say something like, "people ultimately desire happiness." ... It seems reasonable to say that any person who would sacrifice happiness A would only do so for the purpose of some greater happiness B.<br /><br /><br />This is only true if by "desire happiness" you mean the same thing that is meant by "seek that which fulfills the most and strongest desires".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-27613785770182638892010-05-21T10:17:55.338-06:002010-05-21T10:17:55.338-06:00josef,
My sense is that Harris would agree substa...<b>josef</b>,<br /><br /><i>My sense is that Harris would agree substantially (entirely?) which what you characterize as desire-fulfillment. He did not seem, in his TED talk, to be advocating a particular value or set of values, but to say that such values exist. So it's not clear to me that Harris is wrong.</i><br /><br />I agree. Whenever I hear Alonzo say that Harris or Mill or whoever else advocates a maximization theory "is wrong," I tend to think that at the root, what Fyfe advocates isn't much different.<br /><br />For example, I think it's accurate to say something like, "people ultimately desire happiness." Though I don't have a direct quote handy at the moment, I've heard Fyfe reply to that statement by saying something like, "No, people ultimately desire to keep true their propositions... sometimes people will sacrifice happiness for some other desire."<br /><br />That is true, but it doesn't mean that person is not ultimately after their own happiness, or satisfaction. It seems reasonable to say that any person who would sacrifice happiness A would only do so for the purpose of some greater happiness B. Or, that any person who would willingly endure pain would only do so for some greater happiness.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-20074200312278178162010-05-20T15:28:40.689-06:002010-05-20T15:28:40.689-06:00Outstanding! I was hoping you would tackle Carrol&...Outstanding! I was hoping you would tackle Carrol's post, which was for me somewhat cringe-inducing. I will pester Carrol to take a look.<br /><br />As a side note, I don't know if Harris would say human flourishing is substantially different from desire fulfillment. <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/a-science-of-morality_b_567185.html" rel="nofollow">In response to critics, including Carrol</a>, he wrote:<br /><br /><i>I did not arrive at my position on the relationship between human values and the rest of human knowledge by reading the work of moral philosophers; I came to it by considering the logical implications of our making continued progress in the sciences of mind. Second, I am convinced that every appearance of terms like "metaethics," "deontology," "noncognitivism," "anti-realism," "emotivism," and the like, directly increases the amount of boredom in the universe. My goal, both in speaking at conferences like TED and in writing my book, is to start a conversation that a wider audience can engage with and find helpful. Few things would make this goal harder to achieve than for me to speak and write like an academic philosopher.</i><br /><br />My sense is that Harris would agree substantially (entirely?) which what you characterize as desire-fulfillment. He did not seem, in his TED talk, to be advocating a particular value or set of values, but to say that such values exist. So it's not clear to me that Harris is wrong.josefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06650991894634101445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-76285619012855366022010-05-20T15:17:58.001-06:002010-05-20T15:17:58.001-06:00> In fact, one of the conclusions that we get f...> In fact, one of the conclusions that we get from desirism is that, in some situations, different people ought to have different desires. It is better, all things considered, if some people desire that A and others desire that B than it would be if everybody desired A or everybody desired not-A.<br /><br />Is that "some people <b>moral ought</b> to have different desires"? How does this statement affect the claim that morality must be universal?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com