The Truly Tasty
It might be that aliens arrive on Earth years from now, long after our species is gone, and discover my secret stash of Ding-Dongs. (Still fresh, after all those long years!) They, like us, have chemoreceptors on their tongues and assay a taste-test of my Ding-Dongs. "Disgusting!", Thad-welk the Magnificent shrieks, and throws the delicacy to the ground. Sadly, Thad-welk is missing out on the facts. Fact is: Ding-Dongs are tasty. Obviously his tongue is broken, or something.
Why is this silly -- when a similar move regarding the wrongness of killing Rob G., is not so silly? It is no explanation to point out that our moral thinking admits dispute and correction where our thinking about tastiness does not. Instead of explaining, the previous sentence merely reports the facts. What feature of our tastiness thoughts makes attributing a cognitive failure to Thad-welk an unreasonable thing to do?
Why is this silly -- when a similar move regarding the wrongness of killing Rob G., is not so silly? It is no explanation to point out that our moral thinking admits dispute and correction where our thinking about tastiness does not. Instead of explaining, the previous sentence merely reports the facts. What feature of our tastiness thoughts makes attributing a cognitive failure to Thad-welk an unreasonable thing to do?
posted by Idris at 5:43 PM
2 Comments:
Idris:
It might be pointed out that tastiness is a response-dependent concept and this is what licences a permission for Thad-welk's disgust at Ding-Dongs. But, Grak sometime think: the question Idris really meant ask is why response-dependence seem OK for tastiness but not moral goodness?
-Grak
PS: Also Thad-welk probably enjoy brain-sucking more.
Good point Grak!
Post a Comment
<< Home