| ... |
... |
@@ -1,0
+1,29 @@ |
|
1 |
+====A priori reasoning is impossible so the only epistemologically sound basis for morality is experience. ==== |
|
2 |
+**Schwartz:^^ ^^** |
|
3 |
+The empirical support |
|
4 |
+AND |
|
5 |
+an empirical claim. |
|
6 |
+====And, pleasure is inherently good. ==== |
|
7 |
+**Sinhababu : ** |
|
8 |
+We can form |
|
9 |
+AND |
|
10 |
+ affairs we are in. |
|
11 |
+====logical consistency implies we value the happiness of others. ==== |
|
12 |
+**Sayre-McCord ** |
|
13 |
+According to the second |
|
14 |
+AND |
|
15 |
+of all the rest. |
|
16 |
+Thus, the standard is maximizing expected well-being. |
|
17 |
+====The definition of ought implies utilitarianism.==== |
|
18 |
+**Harris^^ ^^:** |
|
19 |
+But this notion |
|
20 |
+AND |
|
21 |
+and human well-being. |
|
22 |
+A. Topical Education |
|
23 |
+B. Ground |
|
24 |
+ |
|
25 |
+====If there is a risk of ethical uncertainty, we should always prioritize survival of the human race to ensure the future. This is an independent weighing claim.==== |
|
26 |
+**Bostrom ~~Nick Bostrom. Faculty of Philosophy and Oxford Martin School University of Oxford. "Existential Risk Prevention as Global Priority." Global Policy (2012)~~** |
|
27 |
+These reflections on moral uncertainty suggest an alternative, complementary way of looking at existential |
|
28 |
+AND |
|
29 |
+of value. To do this, we must prevent any existential catastrophe. |