Timeline for Do ends really exist?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 2 at 22:13 | comment | added | Sextus Empiricus | I don't understand the bullet points. Sure an utilitarian computation is not always easy to make and multiple means can be conflicting like rock paper scissors. So people make decisions based on psychological thought processes that are not always logical. Does that make that there is no pragmatic distinction between means and ends? | |
| Jun 2 at 19:12 | comment | added | Jacob Manaker | To be more explicit: I'm starting with the presumption that the only reason we think end goals exist is an abstraction from a comment thought-process; the bullet points show that this abstraction cannot in general be performed. | |
| Jun 2 at 19:09 | comment | added | Jacob Manaker | @SextusEmpiricus: They don't. But they argue that one can't clearly identify a single goal to prioritize over the others. | |
| Jun 2 at 19:08 | comment | added | Jacob Manaker | @IoannisPaizis: I think the problem is inherent to all forms of virtue ethics, of which Aristotelian theories are certainly one. If you disagree about Aristotle, that's fine; the exact historical contours are not important to my question. | |
| Jun 1 at 4:56 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jun 9 at 3:03 | |||||
| May 31 at 14:54 | comment | added | Sextus Empiricus | I do not really get the three bullet point examples. How do they go against the idea of valuing bodily integrity, happy friends and family, and the power to change the world? | |
| May 31 at 14:45 | comment | added | Sextus Empiricus | This reminds me of the one where Phoebe hates PBS. | |
| May 31 at 7:01 | answer | added | Deipatrous | timeline score: 2 | |
| May 30 at 21:32 | answer | added | user71399 | timeline score: 0 | |
| May 30 at 17:18 | comment | added | Ioannis Paizis | As @Conifold has (politely) commented, Aristotelian end goals (in teleology) has nothing to do with morality. Could you clarify your question more! | |
| May 30 at 15:49 | answer | added | mudskipper | timeline score: 2 | |
| May 30 at 14:51 | answer | added | Barmar | timeline score: 4 | |
| May 30 at 12:46 | answer | added | user369070 | timeline score: 1 | |
| May 30 at 6:12 | comment | added | Conifold | Aristotle and others typically take the means-end distinction in a relativized sense, for the purposes of some activity under consideration E is an end and M is means. It does not mean that E is a "terminal" (ultimate) moral end, it may well be a means in some broader context. As for ultimate moral ends, they are usually associated with intrinsic values, and those are formulated very abstractly. Can they collide? This is controversial, see vast literature on moral dilemmas. | |
| May 30 at 3:31 | history | became hot network question | |||
| May 30 at 2:48 | answer | added | TheMatrix Equation-balance | timeline score: 2 | |
| May 29 at 21:59 | comment | added | user40843 | The SEP article on practical reason and the structure of actions contrasts a "calculative" view, as a holdover from instrumentalism, with multiple other views. | |
| May 29 at 21:13 | answer | added | SystemTheory | timeline score: 3 | |
| May 29 at 20:01 | answer | added | Weather Vane | timeline score: 3 | |
| May 29 at 19:30 | history | asked | Jacob Manaker | CC BY-SA 4.0 |