/lit/ - Literature

ITT hate listeners

I’m wondering if given the tools to success at birth, would we see categorical deviations like amoral and moral or said differently would criminals exist even if those needs were initially met? Shortcuts are absolutely amoral. Are your intentions to be a productive member of society worth more than if you were forced to be productive? Obviously the one who made better choices is objectively better yet the experienced one may have equal desirable traits like creativity or humor. I can green text it
>be given all conceivable tools
>decide to be a leech anyway
If the outcome is to have everybody be a moral citizen, isn’t authoritarian governance of providing all conceivable tools the highest order since we aren’t eternal beings who can fail our way to success overtime?
>t. nazi ideolog if born during WW2

pic related has a cult that worships secular statism.

"I trust that certain of your acolytes would love to see the master in high dudgeon—believing, as you seem to, that you are in the process of mopping the floor with me—but the truth is that your emotions are getting the better of you. I’d rather you not look like the dog who caught the car." -- Sam Harris 2015

Daily reminder objective morality is determinable through neuroscience

torture and systematic massacres of people who disagree with you isn't ethically wrong though.

if you were a guest on Sam Harris' podcast what would you talk about?

this man, in my country he is everything

Now that the dust has settled, can we agree that Harris is a genius that plebs can never fully comprehend

>>7011545
>>7011631
>mfw

>>6803808
>The moment we admit that questions of right and wrong, and good and evil, are actually questions about human and animal well-being, we see that science can, in principle, answer such questions. Human experience depends on everything that can influence states of the human brain, ranging from changes in our genome to changes in the global economy. The relevant details of genetics, neurobiology, psychology, sociology, economics etc. are fantastically complicated, but these are domains of facts, and they fall squarely within the purview of science.

>We should reserve the notion of "morality" for the ways in which we can affect one another's experience for better or worse. Some people use the term "morality" differently, of course, but I think we have a scientific responsibility to focus the conversation so as to make it most useful. We define terms like "medicine," "causation," "law" and "theory" very much to the detriment of homeopathy, astrology, voodoo, Christian Science and other branches of human ignorance, and there is no question that we enjoy the same freedom when speaking about concepts like "right" and "wrong," and "good" and "evil." Once we acknowledge that "morality" relates to questions of human and animal well-being, then there is no reason to doubt that a prescriptive (rather than merely descriptive) science of morality is possible. After all, there are principles of biology, psychology, sociology and economics that will allow us to flourish in this world, and it is clearly possible for us not to flourish due to ignorance of these principles.

>Who are the most mature and hardcore-tier philosophers?
there is one that towers above all others, pic related

>>6753016

There is only one who hasn't been defeated, one who hasn't been deconstructed and rendered irrelevant.