,
5 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
The philosopher @mpigliucci critiques morality-as-cooperation (MAC) and the 60 culture study here, but I think he misconstrues the central argument. (I hope we can discuss and resolve this interesting issue.) #moralityascooperation
We don't 'confuse descriptive and prescriptive’. MAC is primarily a (meta-ethical, descriptive) theory about the nature of morality (that it is a system of cooperative rules). From this theory we derive predictions about the content of morality (ie what the prescriptions will be)
So, the argument is not 'if universal, then good', it's more like 'if morality is a system of cooperative rules, then these cooperative rules will be regarded as good (universally)’.
The cooperative rules *are* considered morally good, which supports the conjecture that morality is a system of cooperative rules. And if morality *is* a system of cooperative rules, then to be moral is to be cooperative. (Or, 'moral' is synonymous with 'cooperative'.)
There's more to say about all this, but let me leave it there for now. I would be very interested to hear what you (and others) think @mpigliucci
