Reading now

thanks for posting that

👍

Interesting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysxG5jFeTME

This one

it looks like the only distinction is whether or not he said "would" vs "could/might"

While promoting his new book, Outgrowing God: A Beginner’s Guide, at The Times and The Sunday Times Cheltenham Literature Festival, Dawkins made the point that if religion were abolished, it might “give people a license to do really bad things.” He referenced evidence that security camera surveillance of customers in shops did appear to deter shoplifting, adding that people might feel free to do wrong in the absence of a “divine spy camera in the sky reading their every thought.”

not that meaningful of a distinction imo bc its obviously speculative either way

I think would and might are very important distinctions

And I believe he said that

I’d agree with that

yeah i mean fair enough

Either way, it seems he was utterly misrepresented by that headline.

well we still dont have the actual quote

but yeah the headline is clickbait lol

for sure

Dawkins complained to The Times.

The quote isn't might or would, btw, its "may". FWIW.

😃

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3194801/

Maximize wellbeing for yourself and those around you. We can measure wellbeing. @everyone

How can we measure wellbeing

The scientific method.

That's not a valid answer

Lol

How do you measure wellbeing with the scientific method?

You could say that in response to a question about how we can measure anything...

You need to read the moral landscape. We can make a scientific, objective claim that chopping someone's head off is bad for their wellbeing.

Is in to ought

Then what about people who choose to commit suicide

That becomes their epitome of pleasure.

I deal with this in my new book.

what if someone has a distorted idea of what wellbeing is

Yeah what are the parameters of your measurement. Are we talking extraversion v nueroticism? Are we using other psychometric parameters. What tests are we using? T tests? ANOVA testing? Is it reliable in a test-restest setting?

then they shouldn't attempt to maximize wellbeing for themself or others

That's why we rely on the scientific method. No room for distortion.

It either is or isn't.

But you're making the claim that someone dying is bad for their wellbeing, yet people regularly decide for themselves that what's better is to not live

Whether or not someone * is * abiding by the scientific method doesn't mean they aren't going to feel like they are

No. Wellbeing is decided by the scientific method. You cannot be well if you are dead.