"feels good" is inherently meaningful

From: Metaqualia (metaqualia@mynichi.com)
Date: Fri Jul 02 2004 - 13:06:22 MDT

> No, it is rather because your "morality" at its root is limited to what
> "feels good". I find that inherently meaningless.

But morality is inherently about what feels good.

would it be wrong to steal if people felt good when robbed?
would it be wrong to starve your children if starving implied no suffering
in the present nor in the future?
why would you donate to charities if humans were all zombies?

without "feelings" of some sort, morality isn't needed.

Does computing 2*5 have moral value?
Does the number of traffic lights in your city have moral value?
Does it make a difference which leg makes the first step when you get out of
your bed?

If something doesn't feel like something, then it is irrelevant.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:47 MDT