testing312

'Freedom' is not a framework for morality? I will judge you as a bad person for not saving the child in the pond while able to do so.

Tidying your room would be adding energy to the system, to make it tidy. This is still in line woth thermodynamics where adding energy can decrease entropy

Because it is ridiculously easy to overfit your models, and the combined human behaviour producing 'history' is so complex and ever-changing that it cannot be simulated.

Also, if such a law were proposed, a widespread (dis)belief in that law could undo it.

> to perform two simple, necessary tasks for a cyclist; replace a tyre/inner tube, or replace a chain

Never had to do either of those things, driving a bike almost daily throughout the city to school, hobbies, friends,... The few times my tire went flat, a short visit to a mechanic cost alsmost nothing

> Treat others how you would like to be treated.

> If you wanted to get more complicated its, "consider the well-being".

Those two are not a set of moral rules, they just seem like the 'heuristic' that I already stated. But it does not help you with the trolley problem, for example.

I also never said that religion is/should/can be the answer to the messyness of moral questions.

> I'm not a religious person, but the thing that the anti-religion movements have failed spectacularly at is providing a universal, teachable framework for basic morality.

But there is no universal, teachable framework for basic morality. Even the seemingly most basic rule: don't hurt anyone, has so many exceptions.

There is no 'small' set of rules you can use to describe morality. Reality is messy, human interactions even more so. We need to teach people to be empathic, and to be willing to try and understand the others position and view