Ah, Kurt, this was a meta-message for all humans that are seeking the whole truth together in a never-ending quest. I like Thomas Sowell’s ‘no final solutions’ message. In your model, could it be that at times positive outcomes like aesthetic or spiritual or interpersonal joy are more important to measure than harm. Conflict over the most, the best can be potent with very little harm in the equation. Am I on to something or will you file this under ‘the little harm of missing out’ is still more important than the joy of ‘arguing over the best sunset ever seen!’ Thanks for all you do. Best wishes, Randall Paul
Framing morality as all about "harm" is, sad to say, simply another way to say that it is all about "the good," which goes back to Plato and Aristotle. It is not at all clear that "harm" is substantially different than the "inverse of good." But good on you for turning an ancient framing into a successful career!
Aristotle was certainly an inspiration here, especially for the agent-patient distinction. He didn't talk too much about underlying cognitive processes (although he did hint at them with discussions of concepts), and, imho, even ancient wisdom can use science to tell us what among it is true, and how it actually works.
"How it actually works" still appears mysterious, I'm afraid. But I have no dog in the fight (I am also critical of MFT). I am just entertained that "scientific morality" appears to invoke many of the same emotions (with a lower-grade conflict perhaps) that "religious morality" historically did.
Beautifully detailed article
Thanks Todd!
Great post, Kurt - I always learn a ton from your writings!
Thanks Paul!
Ah, Kurt, this was a meta-message for all humans that are seeking the whole truth together in a never-ending quest. I like Thomas Sowell’s ‘no final solutions’ message. In your model, could it be that at times positive outcomes like aesthetic or spiritual or interpersonal joy are more important to measure than harm. Conflict over the most, the best can be potent with very little harm in the equation. Am I on to something or will you file this under ‘the little harm of missing out’ is still more important than the joy of ‘arguing over the best sunset ever seen!’ Thanks for all you do. Best wishes, Randall Paul
Framing morality as all about "harm" is, sad to say, simply another way to say that it is all about "the good," which goes back to Plato and Aristotle. It is not at all clear that "harm" is substantially different than the "inverse of good." But good on you for turning an ancient framing into a successful career!
Aristotle was certainly an inspiration here, especially for the agent-patient distinction. He didn't talk too much about underlying cognitive processes (although he did hint at them with discussions of concepts), and, imho, even ancient wisdom can use science to tell us what among it is true, and how it actually works.
"How it actually works" still appears mysterious, I'm afraid. But I have no dog in the fight (I am also critical of MFT). I am just entertained that "scientific morality" appears to invoke many of the same emotions (with a lower-grade conflict perhaps) that "religious morality" historically did.