No one instinctively "creates a thriving global community", it is an assumed axiom that the holder hopes would yield a good system of principles
This is a circular statement. How do we know whether it's a good system of principles? According to you and Sam Harris, you do a science experiment and see how well it measures up according to your fundamental arbitrary metric, "creating a thriving global community".
So, summarizing how you think a fundamental ought should be chosen is that you pick one arbitrarily, then work out the principles that follow, and then "hope" that those principles will lead to a world that satisfies the fundamental ought. Obviously it will satisfy the fundamental ought, because you chose them so they would! There's no science going on here, just pure circular reasoning.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2010-12-06 11:51 pm (UTC)No one instinctively "creates a thriving global community", it is an assumed axiom that the holder hopes would yield a good system of principles
This is a circular statement. How do we know whether it's a good system of principles? According to you and Sam Harris, you do a science experiment and see how well it measures up according to your fundamental arbitrary metric, "creating a thriving global community".
So, summarizing how you think a fundamental ought should be chosen is that you pick one arbitrarily, then work out the principles that follow, and then "hope" that those principles will lead to a world that satisfies the fundamental ought. Obviously it will satisfy the fundamental ought, because you chose them so they would! There's no science going on here, just pure circular reasoning.