8:45 - but, universals such as gender equality are not something many religious sects are willing to accept (they mostly prefer a holy hierarchy: God, man, woman, livestock, children...
Opposition to this sort of hierarchy is among the core value conflicts between secular and religious groups.
The religious groups are just as adamant about resisting certain secular "universals" as the seculars are about claiming what these as universals.
Cesari does not address this, so her view is weak.
Thanks for the compliment. But I don't think anyone should even consider the possibility of there being experts in this field. Politics, religion and morality often boil down to questions like "who should survive?" or "who has the biggest army?" or "who was there first".
All talk about right or wrong goes out the window because there is really nothing secure about anyone's epistemology.
And since this, too, is an epistemic claim (subject to dispute) you can see how impossible this is.
I wholeheartedly agree. Often when you examine people's motives, push them to define their terms and attempt to narrow them down to a single point, they've shed their pretense for moral good and are exposed for mere assessments of "This is what's good for me" or "This is what I want imposed on the world".
The best example of morality that I've seen so far is passivism, but it's unsustainable. Ultimately empathy seems to be anyone's best guess.
Yes, I tend to agree. But empathy can get down right tiring because it is very much like caring about everything.
I prefer understanding. There is an old French saying that says "to understand all is to forgive all". This seems true for 2 reasons. One is obvious (how can you be angry if you understand). The other is cool: No one can ever expect to understand all, so no one must expect to be able to forgive all. And this seems to apply universally by logic.
Comment removed
fillosofert 3 years ago
8:45 - but, universals such as gender equality are not something many religious sects are willing to accept (they mostly prefer a holy hierarchy: God, man, woman, livestock, children...
Opposition to this sort of hierarchy is among the core value conflicts between secular and religious groups.
The religious groups are just as adamant about resisting certain secular "universals" as the seculars are about claiming what these as universals.
Cesari does not address this, so her view is weak.
homerthompsonman 3 years ago 3
interesting analysis, although I'm not so quick to agree with your last comment but maybe that's cause i'm a laymen.
Cheers!
NwZ2 3 years ago
Thanks for the compliment. But I don't think anyone should even consider the possibility of there being experts in this field. Politics, religion and morality often boil down to questions like "who should survive?" or "who has the biggest army?" or "who was there first".
All talk about right or wrong goes out the window because there is really nothing secure about anyone's epistemology.
And since this, too, is an epistemic claim (subject to dispute) you can see how impossible this is.
homerthompsonman 3 years ago
I wholeheartedly agree. Often when you examine people's motives, push them to define their terms and attempt to narrow them down to a single point, they've shed their pretense for moral good and are exposed for mere assessments of "This is what's good for me" or "This is what I want imposed on the world".
The best example of morality that I've seen so far is passivism, but it's unsustainable. Ultimately empathy seems to be anyone's best guess.
NwZ2 3 years ago
Yes, I tend to agree. But empathy can get down right tiring because it is very much like caring about everything.
I prefer understanding. There is an old French saying that says "to understand all is to forgive all". This seems true for 2 reasons. One is obvious (how can you be angry if you understand). The other is cool: No one can ever expect to understand all, so no one must expect to be able to forgive all. And this seems to apply universally by logic.
Gotta love the French.
homerthompsonman 3 years ago