From: Metaqualia (metaqualia@mynichi.com)
Date: Wed Jul 07 2004 - 02:44:29 MDT
> How is it relevant for a bunch of decidedly amateur philosophers to
> chase what is morality or qualia and so on around in circles? If the
Morality should be the philosophy of the masses. We shouldn't expect
professional philosophers to all of a sudden come down from a mountain and
give us stone tablets with the definitions (and with incomprehensible
mathematical proofs). I can talk about qualia morality to anyone at a dinner
table. See I stab them in the hand with a fork, and I ask them how did that
feel, so they say OUCH, I say great then I stab the next person at the table
and ask the first person how do you think she felt, they say not good! So I
say should we make a rule that at this table nobody gets stabbed? They agree
right away, so I ask what about their cat, they say yeah the cat too, there
you have qualia based objective morality :)
>and what are and are not "positive" qualia seems to be
> somewhat subjective to the sentients experiencing them.
I disagree, a couple of objections have been raised mostly regarding SM, but
as I pointed out earlier, liking item A and not liking it are different
qualia altogether; one is positive and one is negative. The sensation that
went with eating spicy food when I didn't like it, and the sensation of
eating spicy food now that I like it, are completely different.
mq
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:47 MDT