Hacker News Reader

Comment by MrMcCall | Hacker News Reader

So this is something England's Royals are funding?

In a just world, they would be added to the "Conflicts of Interest" section. ;-)

Your reading more into this than can ever be read into it.

Even if animals did show inequity aversion, it in no way implies that they ought to. Animals do many things which we as humans consider as abhorrent, the only reason why you think inequity aversion is desirable is because of your prior moral convictions.

Morality cannot be derived from facts of nature because "what is" and "what ought to be" are two different categories, and without some "moral axiom" there is no way to connect these two categories. Stated differently, you need some initial moral framework to inform you how to react on facts of nature.

Categorical imperatives are not hypothetical imperatives, and there is no way to get to categorical imperatives starting from hypothetical imperatives alone.

In the wise words of Chesterton:

"Darwinism can be used to back up two mad moralities, but it cannot be used to back up a single sane one. The kinship and competition of all living creatures can be used as a reason for being insanely cruel or insanely sentimental; but not for a healthy love of animals. On the evolutionary basis you may be inhumane, or you may be absurdly humane; but you cannot be human. That you and a tiger are one may be a reason for being tender to a tiger. Or it may be a reason for being as cruel as the tiger. It is one way to train the tiger to imitate you, it is a shorter way to imitate the tiger. But in neither case does evolution tell you how to treat a tiger reasonably, that is, to admire his stripes while avoiding his claws."

The key here is that that "woosh" sound you hear is not a bird or a plane or even Superman, it's the joke flying right over your head, my friend ;-)

But, in all seriousness, thanks for that Chesterton quote. I really, really like it.

If you like contemplating our moral nature as human beings (and it looks like you do, thank God), you've come to the right place, my dear, dear friend (not at all joking about that). Here's a conversation I had the other day here about that very subject and how we Sufis understand our human place in the universe vis a vis morality:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42317164

We love you! I am at your service. Compassion is a choice we can all make, and should all make, to help make this world a better place for one and all.

What has HN come to... teenager jokes (woosh?) about a serious topic. It's not at all clear you were joking, please remember people cannot hear your tone of voice, or see your body language, all they can see is what you wrote which looks very serious to me and by the responses here, to most others.

I tried with the wink emoji ;-)

And if you think you're speaking for "most" people here, what can I say?

In the wise words of Chesterton, "Mr. McCabe thinks that I am not serious but only funny, because Mr. McCabe thinks that funny is the opposite of serious. Funny is the opposite of not funny, and of nothing else. The question of whether a man expresses himself in a grotesque or laughable phraseology, or in a stately and restrained phraseology, is not a question of motive or of moral state, it is a question of instinctive language and self-expression. Whether a man chooses to tell the truth in long sentences or short jokes is a problem analogous to whether he chooses to tell the truth in French or German. Whether a man preaches his gospel grotesquely or gravely is merely like the question of whether he preaches it in prose or verse."

every ruling class loves this paper

Animals can show no aversion to inequity and I can still think that aristocracy is immoral because I'm not a base animal but a human with knowledge of right and wrong.

That is the key, and can't be overstated.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com