Frumpagumpus t1_j5d58kj wrote
Reply to comment by MootFile in What do you think an ordinary, non-billionaire non-PhD person should be doing, preparing, or looking out for? by Six-headed_dogma_man
another thing I would say is science/bayes theorem by itself is really no basis for any kind of moral philosophy. it has problems almost as bad as religious appeal to power/authority. not to mention is/ought problem.
freedom or fairness might be. so i think as bad as NAP principle is libertarians at least make a good faith effort whereas scientism doesn't even start from any kind of grounding.
pursuit of truth is somewhat interesting as well, though i think pursuit of falseness is equally interesting, as well as pursuit of computational complexity i guess XD (but that's a level deeper than just empirical experimentation)
MootFile t1_j5dc8wa wrote
What do you mean by morals.
Frumpagumpus t1_j5de98i wrote
capitalism = capital can be acquired through free trade
you seem to be positing that "pro scientism" will somehow distribute capital via a means other than trade, some form of distribution, which would presumably require making some kind of moral judgement of the form person y deserves amount of capital z.
but i don't see how scientific method has anything to do with making such moral judgements.
MootFile t1_j5df5yl wrote
Utilitarianism tries to frame it into a science based measurement.
Scientism is about solving problems. People starving is a problem. Morals are up to the community.
Frumpagumpus t1_j5eh5e7 wrote
it seems to me the incidence of effective altrusists is higher amongst ultra high net worth individuals than ordinary people.
(and objectively they seem to have achieved quite a lot e.g. bill gates&rotary club vs polio)
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments