Destiny has the right moral compass. Does he lack the words or interest to talk about morality?

My point is, has he decided that meta-ethics is a waste of time without considering new data around the science of well-being?

I today watched Destiny debate some guy named Tristan about the “Fourth Age.” (Old debate.)

It was CRAZY. Tristan couldn’t sync with Destiny’s flow at all, not in tone, structure, or precision. It was borderline unwatchable. Destiny tried hard to meet him halfway but Tristan was difficult af.

I agreed with everything Destiny said, but one thing jumped out as maybe problematic.

“When it comes to like, should we have Universal Health Care, should we take in refugees, like on these things, these are all going to come down to factual grounds of life, do they help us or hurt us, and we’re all going to generally agree on what helps and hurts us. So meta-ethics is just a cancerous route to go down to have arguments.”

I mostly get it. But I always get a little nervous when he says this. The whole “let’s assume we all want to increase well-being and reduce suffering. Let’s skip the abstract values stuff and debate how to get there.”

The religious right thinks the left is morally rudderless, no surprises there. It’s been that way forever. And I’m not religious, just that when we shrug off meta-ethics it’s bad, maybe we should linger a bit and check that box better.

Look back at the Richard Spencer convo (thanks @Xenogears_ps1). Was a ame thing in a way: he pushed D on values and religion, and D only offered vague existentialism as a way that “some” people actually can build a meaning without religion.

The secular left has great arguments but is getting asses kicked on the “morals” question, because the fucking religious thing on the right is getting so big.

Destiny’s answer to God is: the Constitution, democracy, and come on, we all just know.”

Not good enough. Times have changed. Sam Harris tried more with The Moral Landscape,not perfect but it’s useful cuz he argues that morality can be rooted in science. As a neuroscientist, he claims that we can objectively define suffering and wellbeing.

Even better, check out Laurie Santos who built on this exact thing with The Science of Well-Being, using neuroscience, psych, biomarkers to track what makes people actually thrive or suffer. (Turns out wealth has diminishing returns and under a certain income wellbeing plummets. This data could be policy worthy.)

Look at HDI or LQI scores and even economists like Piketty. Foundational morality and normative frameworks emerge, quantifiable, a directional moral system grounded in fact, not dogma, that we can defend with as much fervor as a Christian. Maybe more.

Ben Shapiro lays out such a childish, one-sided argument about right and wrong in Lions and Savages. That’s what we are up against. Destiny won’t talk morals but Ben has this whole religion thing, and it helps their side a lot.

What if we had a new counterpunch? Destiny pls address any of this shit.

Differences in policy preference is NOT just from being confused about facts or not stringing them together coherently. You have that part won.

Accept that many literally do not care about the weak, or if they do it’s because religion tells them they have to. Shameless religious social Darwinism is real. Rand had it without theism, she fucking knew this sort mattered.

Kirk often said “empathy is a mistake” but that’s a window how little he has, because we don’t choose empathy. We feel it. He trashes it because he doesn’t feel it. He doesn’t think what humans WANT, matters, if it’s not dictated by God.

The kind of person that scales better for humanity and brings a better world on our side and proving that is getting closer to objective every day.

If we fold in even a little of the Harris/Santos/Piketty/LQI toolkit, we pone the “you need God for morality” idiots.

Let’s plant our flag on the moral high-ground. Talking circles around them isn’t enough.