Rodrigo, I wonder why you launch an axiomatic from time immemorial with Hume.
Why Hume? Because of the herd mentality of academia.
Against the scientific method since time immemorial of first principles?
Including that which made #SpiceTradeAsia region the happiest and richest region in the world for millenia? Where human symbiosis, biomimicry, #zerocrime communities, natural currency, sustainability and #evolutionary_emergence boomed?
Sense BBC production “The Spice of Life” while asking “What was the state if ethics in the region then and now?” off https://youtu.be/NuZujx-LMfg
Why are Westerners flocking to Bali, Indonesia instead of the other way round? Family values, sensibility and ethics must have a role in the answer, right?
Can’t we in this AI era at least go beyond confirmation biases and limiting academic precedents/beliefs?
I see this data as evidence that morality is an outcome, or at least another example of logic=hindsight. That is, "morality" "moral beliefs" "law" "religion" et al, is the result of empathy and other interpersonal emotions as played out in social settings and frameworks. Thus asking how do any of these outcomes cause themselves is a bit weird. Sure, 2+2=4 but why do you ask if that is "true". Logic is a hindsight, and all systems such as these outcomes, are built out of hindsight/s trying to maintain consistency as if that structural logic could control or predict, but 2+2 does not predict 4. Its just a mapping. That we may or may not agree on.
And that's why the application of law is always reactive. "Morality" shares that fuzzy promise with justice. That we seek to do so is the result of an urge to moralise, not to believe, not and because of some system's resulting beliefs (Fideistically or propositionally created "beliefs").
Further, if having a moral belief could guide anything, then narcissists and psychopaths (incapable of empathy) would be able to do the right thing simply by "believing" a moral belief. This is ridiculous to anyone who has experience with them. But then moral systems and religions were created in cahoots with narcissists as they availed themselves of the trappings of power, to build systems to suit themselves, and the rest of us failed to properly police those parasites and throw-backs.
Rodrigo, I wonder why you launch an axiomatic from time immemorial with Hume.
Why Hume? Because of the herd mentality of academia.
Against the scientific method since time immemorial of first principles?
Including that which made #SpiceTradeAsia region the happiest and richest region in the world for millenia? Where human symbiosis, biomimicry, #zerocrime communities, natural currency, sustainability and #evolutionary_emergence boomed?
Sense BBC production “The Spice of Life” while asking “What was the state if ethics in the region then and now?” off https://youtu.be/NuZujx-LMfg
Why are Westerners flocking to Bali, Indonesia instead of the other way round? Family values, sensibility and ethics must have a role in the answer, right?
Can’t we in this AI era at least go beyond confirmation biases and limiting academic precedents/beliefs?
I see this data as evidence that morality is an outcome, or at least another example of logic=hindsight. That is, "morality" "moral beliefs" "law" "religion" et al, is the result of empathy and other interpersonal emotions as played out in social settings and frameworks. Thus asking how do any of these outcomes cause themselves is a bit weird. Sure, 2+2=4 but why do you ask if that is "true". Logic is a hindsight, and all systems such as these outcomes, are built out of hindsight/s trying to maintain consistency as if that structural logic could control or predict, but 2+2 does not predict 4. Its just a mapping. That we may or may not agree on.
And that's why the application of law is always reactive. "Morality" shares that fuzzy promise with justice. That we seek to do so is the result of an urge to moralise, not to believe, not and because of some system's resulting beliefs (Fideistically or propositionally created "beliefs").
Further, if having a moral belief could guide anything, then narcissists and psychopaths (incapable of empathy) would be able to do the right thing simply by "believing" a moral belief. This is ridiculous to anyone who has experience with them. But then moral systems and religions were created in cahoots with narcissists as they availed themselves of the trappings of power, to build systems to suit themselves, and the rest of us failed to properly police those parasites and throw-backs.