Editing Can’t vs Mustn’t (section)

=== 2024 ===
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1834499273406185522
|name=Eric Weinstein
|content=We seem to have opened the doors to hell because there is now no basis for ought. And we need must and mustn’t.

In the absence of religion or nature, there is no strong ought. And society needs ought.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1834498097025876438
|name=Eric Weinstein
|content=Contrarian opinion lightly held: 

The so-called “Naturalistic Fallacy” may be just that. But we should probably rapidly reconsider the wisdom of trying to get rid of it. Or even pointing it out at scale.
|timestamp=Sep 13
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1834500203992547393
|name=Eric Weinstein
|content=Said differently, '''assume that society may have previously used religion and/or nature to create a coordinated sense of “ought”, “must” and “mustn’t”.'''

In the absence of both, there is no coordinating source. And we may need one or the other to coordinate a needed sense of obligation.
|timestamp=Sep 13
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Selfobserver-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/Selfobserver/status/1834498767388590224
|name=Self Observer
|usernameurl=https://x.com/Selfobserver
|username=Selfobserver
|content=The is–ought problem is almost the same as the naturalistic fallacy.

How do you mean to get rid of it, and why?
|timestamp=Sep 13
}}
|timestamp=12:48 AM · Sep 13, 2024
}}