Comment on oh man

• dragonfucker@lemmy.nz ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  How can pure reason arrive at any understanding of justice?

  source

  • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    1. I am a sentient creature that feels pain and pleasure

    2. Others appear to be sentient creatures that feel pain and pleasure

    3. Pain is bad, so I should avoid inflicting it

    You don’t need empathy as an axiom to derive it rationally

    source

    • xthexder@l.sw0.com ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Statement #3 is hearsay. I would argue the only thing you can know is that you personally do not like pain. There is no absolute good or bad, only what aligns or doesn’t with your passions.

      The Golden Rule of “treating others as one would want to be treated”, is a logical conclusion that comes from experiencing the world and seeing that there’s a high probability that others will return actions in kind. It’s not perfect since everyone has different preferences (just look at the variety of sexualities and kinks out there).

      source

      • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        It is the logical extension of noticing the similarities between yourself and others, and noticing that you do not enjoy pain. It’s certainly not mathematically rigorous, but it follows from simple reasoning nonetheless. If you wanted to be rigorous, you can’t even claim that you don’t like pain, only that you haven’t liked specific instances of pain in the past. Some estimations are necessary for a functioning framework of any kind, including ethics.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • dragonfucker@lemmy.nz ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Pain and pleasure are passions. You said you were gonna use pure reason. Not use reason as an aid to passions.

      source