I know what you mean. I think I was referencing in passing something I've wibbled about at more length elsewhere. But firstly, people plainly do feel like that, right or wrong.
Definitely expanding "us" as fast as possible is good. Both from a "he has human rights similarly to me" argument, and a "game theory, if we work together we both win" argument.
And something being natural isn't sufficient for it to be good, no: we've decided lots of things we do naturally suck. But I morality must be derived from what we think -- from what else could it be? (I need to rework some old posts that I no longer quite agree with, but things like http://cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com/62407.html)
That is, point #2 in the original post, is based on the idea that it might be ok to place people closer to you with more importance. And a metaphor for why.
Reflecting I see a lot of this is duplicating comments to hilarityallen's post, I'll go down there and look at those comments.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-12 02:48 pm (UTC)I know what you mean. I think I was referencing in passing something I've wibbled about at more length elsewhere. But firstly, people plainly do feel like that, right or wrong.
Definitely expanding "us" as fast as possible is good. Both from a "he has human rights similarly to me" argument, and a "game theory, if we work together we both win" argument.
And something being natural isn't sufficient for it to be good, no: we've decided lots of things we do naturally suck. But I morality must be derived from what we think -- from what else could it be? (I need to rework some old posts that I no longer quite agree with, but things like http://cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com/62407.html)
That is, point #2 in the original post, is based on the idea that it might be ok to place people closer to you with more importance. And a metaphor for why.
Reflecting I see a lot of this is duplicating comments to hilarityallen's post, I'll go down there and look at those comments.