Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

bumharmony t1_ituef0a wrote

Reply to comment by simonperry955 in The morality of fairness by simonperry955

Empathy in the (making the) rules of distributive justice. Not in the execution or interpretation of them ex post.

1

simonperry955 OP t1_itykfk4 wrote

I think that would be "helping in response to need".

1

bumharmony t1_ityw11l wrote

That would still be part of the subsequent ex post interpretation.

1

simonperry955 OP t1_itzuwg3 wrote

Prior to helping, need would have to be determined using cognitive empathy, that anyone can learn to do (better), in my opinion.

Truth and compassion equals wisdom. Truth about the person in need is found by empathy.

1

simonperry955 OP t1_itzve57 wrote

>Empathy in the (making the) rules of distributive justice

That would be the "need" part. When morality was evolving, < 2 million years ago, people were interdependent, living and surviving together in small groups. People needed each other to cooperate with to survive, so, they were concerned to see that everyone in the group got enough to eat and was fit and well.

1

bumharmony t1_iu3tlgh wrote

We have not lived only to fulfill some ambiguous ”need” for millions of years now.

Also ethical naturalism and nonmoralism have been dead for a long time if they ever even were alive.

1

simonperry955 OP t1_iujxebr wrote

>We have not lived only to fulfill some ambiguous ”need” for millions of years now.

We all experience a pressure to thrive and survive, i.e., to do what will cause our inclusive thriving and surviving.

&#x200B;

>ethical naturalism and nonmoralism

I looked it up: I think I'm an ethical non-naturalist. We feel we ought to fulfil ethical norms. I make a descriptive ought.

Morality has to evolve from the interplay between the needs and goals of humans, and their social and physical environment. Both of these are factual and non-moral.

1