I would be interested to hear, from those who regard themselves as very rational and not afraid to boast about it, how confused people are about these issues.
What is the rational response to all of the scientific proof that our moral intuition is inconsistent? Is it definitely necessary to resolve the inconsistencies? If we can describe some resolutions as "in favor of idealism" and others as resolutions "in favor of cynicism," which kind is best supported by rationality?
Many common life experiences also reveal inconsistencies in your moral intuitions. I have a feeling that there's a general trend of people resolving inconsistencies on the side of cynicism as they age -- for instance older people are more right-wing than younger people.
"Shut up and multiply" I think summarizes a resolution on the side of idealism.
Who's right? Or tell me why this isn't a useful way to look at the problem.
I would be interested to hear, from those who regard themselves as very rational and not afraid to boast about it, how confused people are about these issues.
I'm not super rational, but I might as well say... I'm kind of confused about it, but what I've been doing for the last few months seems to be working so far.
Basically, I think that my moral intuitions are pretty solid at telling me which goals are good, but that my default emotions are pretty bad at weighing the relevant considerations, and lead to a large share of my inconsistency.
Lets take the O...
Joshua Greene manages to squeeze his ideas about 'point and shoot morality vs. manual mode morality' into just 10 minutes. For those unfamiliar, his work is a neuroscientific approach to recommending that we shut up and multiply.
Greene's 10-minute video lecture.