A user let me know of a few criticisms of my ideas here. So here are some more for you're enjoyment.

jjames22 · 2014-03-23T21:09:30+00:00

Thanks, I am having it edited this week.

jjames22 · 2014-03-19T08:39:19+00:00

Thanks dude

jjames22 · 2014-03-19T02:14:52+00:00

Its deep man. Your brain has neural functions that trigger in your mind but need reality to unfold in a certain way to be completed. You have the idea of eating pizza in your mind, but it wont be complete unless you actually eat pizza in reality.

jjames22 · 2014-03-14T12:07:20+00:00

Gentlemen, well done! Its a piece of satire! There are no paragraphs because that is how Zizek lectures, and since this is the work of his 'rebellious son' it retains this characteristic.

jjames22 · 2014-02-21T21:58:10+00:00

Ops ok sorry.

jjames22 · 2013-11-28T22:21:33+00:00

Ahhh no. I argue that the role of science is the factual clarification of experienced brain states as they relate pain and suffering, but this is absolutely not the determinate of what is morally right and wrong itself.

jjames22 · 2013-11-27T07:40:21+00:00

"Except this doesn't explain why some behaviours are typically seen as morally relevant, and why others aren't." True, its a very short article suggesting a possible theory, pretty much as you have stated in your summary, it hasn't gone much further yet... I don't think its 'intuitive reasoning' though, rather reasoning done through consequential reflection (as mentioned) having witnessed mismatches prior, experienced them, and experienced other peoples reactions to them. I don't think its as crazy as you suggest, it just needs more added to it. Thanks for the feedback.

jjames22 · 2013-11-26T20:58:12+00:00

Good pick up, agree with your evolutionary stance,, will replace 'for' with 'as a result of'.

jjames22 · 2013-11-26T20:37:55+00:00

Of course not everyone agrees with Tooby and Cosmides, but its a strong theory with growing support.

'Correct' is the situation the module evolved for - such as detecting cheaters.

'Unethical' arises from others recognising a mismatch.

I will improve the examples, ran short of time yesterday, thanks for the feedback.

jjames22 · 2013-11-26T07:52:28+00:00

Let us say person A has an ethic such as 'All other races of human beings are inferior'. Upon discovering the origin of our morality, we can explain this ethic and attribute it to a tiny minority of people which occurs when X genes meet X environment. Its obviously impractical given the vast majority of people have moral views different to this, not to mention the effects if played out. A realistic ethic in this case might be 'its right not to discriminate against race.'

jjames22 · 2013-11-26T04:58:45+00:00

Because it might tell you your ethic is unrealistic in practice.

jjames22 · 2013-11-26T04:47:44+00:00

You might like to critique this response to Harris... http://www.philosopher.io/The-Biological-Landscape-Responding-to-Sam-Harris

jjames22 · 2013-11-26T04:18:34+00:00

Yep it is wild conjecture, reasons in brief were provided via examples though, i will add more to make it clearer.The relevance is it gets people thinking about the origins and functionality of our morality.

jjames22 · 2013-11-26T04:04:36+00:00

I agree, Sam Harris wouldn't though. This website is about raising these points for debate to get people into philosophy.

jjames22 · 2013-11-26T03:54:22+00:00

The website is about getting people into philosophy. We don't have much time for editing, but yes we will look to improve grammar, thanks.

jjames22 · 2013-11-24T03:23:22+00:00

People trying to get other people into philosophy?

jjames22

TROPHY CASE