Church of the BPW/Imposition Ethics https://xitter.cf/t.co/ZSQqO50yCk https://xitter.cf/t.co/vyTAAb7STj
Minneapolis, MN
Joined June 2017
- Tweets7.1K
- Following318
- Followers2K
- Likes1.3K
Pinned Tweet
Curious where you REALLY stand on right vs wrong? Take my new Morality Quiz β discover if you're more utilitarian, deontologist, virtue ethicist... or something wilder π
Link: churchofthebestpossibleworldβ¦
#Morality #Ethics #Philosophy #MoralPhilosophy #PersonalityQuiz #Quiz
You were born on one side of a line someone drew before you existed.
That line determines your rights, your opportunities, your life.
Did you consent to that? Did anyone?
@PhilosophyBreak @EricSchwitzgebel
churchofthebpw.org
AI is making decisions about your life right now.
Your credit score. Your job application. Your insurance rate.
You didn't consent to the algorithm.
You can't appeal to it.
You just live with its judgment.
Is that moral? Who's responsible?
@ErikJHoel @GaryMarcus
Save this.
The consent test. Apply it to anything:
- Who is being forced?
- Could they actually say no?
- Did they genuinely agree?
Forced = immoral.
Everyone agreed = moral.
One test. Every moral question.
Find a case it fails. @julianbaggini @CosmicSkeptic
Is punishment moral?
A) Yes β we deliberately harm someone for what they did.
B) No β all crime goes unanswered.
Neither is comfortable. That means we're asking the wrong question.
Consent, not punishment, should be the goal.
Am I wrong? @ContraPoints @PhilosophyBreak
Either free will is real β or it isn't.
If real: consent matters. Responsibility exists.
If not: you couldn't choose otherwise. Consent is meaningless.
Most moral systems assume free will. Almost none defend it.
Where do you stand? @ErikJHoel @GaryMarcus
Brain implants. Neural interfaces. Direct cognitive enhancement.
The technology exists. Consent frameworks don't.
Who decides what goes into your mind, and when can you say no?
@ErikJHoel @GaryMarcus
churchofthebpw.org
I've never lost an argument about the foundation of morality.
Not because I'm smart. Because the argument has one rule that applies universally.
Ask me the hardest moral case you can think of.
I'll answer in one sentence.
@EricSchwitzgebel @PhilosophyBreak
If you own your body, no government has the right to criminalize what you put in it.
Drug laws say otherwise.
Who consented to the state having authority over your bloodstream?
@ContraPoints @SwipeWright
churchofthebpw.org
Heaven and Hell are moral problems, not theological ones.
Eternal suffering for finite sins is disproportionate.
Eternal reward for blind obedience is just bribery.
Neither passes the consent test.
So what WOULD a moral afterlife look like?
@RationalityRules @CosmicSkeptic
You live under laws made before you were born, enforced by people you didn't choose, in a system you didn't design.
We call this consent of the governed.
Is it?
@julianbaggini @GaryMarcus
churchofthebpw.org
A child can't consent to their religion, their politics, or their name.
Parents decide. Society accepts it.
But if consent is the moral standard, what justifies lifelong imposition on someone who can't refuse?
@EricSchwitzgebel @PhilosophyBreak
churchofthebpw.org
What's more dangerous: a world where people suffer, or a world where people can be forced against their will?
Most moral systems obsess over the first.
I think the second is the real problem. And I think I can prove it.
Change my mind. @GaryMarcus @EricSchwitzgebel
Quick moral test:
You can prevent a terrorist attack, but only by torturing one innocent person who hasn't consented.
A) Torture them. Save hundreds.
B) Refuse. Respect their consent.
There is a correct answer. What's yours?
@ContraPoints @PhilosophyTube