Skip to main content
6 events
when toggle format what by license comment
May 16, 2021 at 5:50 comment added armand @justsomeoldman deontologists are not my forte so I might be wrong, but they have various ways to assert why we have a duty to have in such or such way. For Kant the proper behavior is determined by reason, and we all have a duty to act reasonably because otherwise it would be unreasonable. But even some Christians are deontologist, like the Calvinists (I might be wrong), for whom access to paradise is through faith, not acts. Our good acts don't grant us any reward, and we just have a duty to obey God's rules without expecting anything from it (according to them)
May 16, 2021 at 5:06 comment added Just Some Old Man To the deontologist – arguing people should not need an incentive seems to be circular, in that it presupposes the importance of some sort of morality (evinced by the word “should”). An opposing argument is that it is simply descriptively true that many humans do seek incentive to act morally. Thinking they should not is not efficacious.
May 16, 2021 at 5:00 comment added Just Some Old Man +1 I like you point out how some in two schools of thought would argue why or if people should care about morality in the first place, rather than presupposing the importance of morality and then argue within their own school of thought. The latter is boring without the former.
May 15, 2021 at 4:25 history edited armand CC BY-SA 4.0
deleted 11 characters in body
May 15, 2021 at 2:55 comment added CriglCragl Unified in: "We are not punished for our sins, but by our sins." - Elbert Hubbard. "He who is unjust, let him be unjust still; he who is filthy, let him be filthy still; he who is righteous, let him be righteous still; he who is holy, let him be holy still." - Revelations 22:11
May 15, 2021 at 1:37 history answered armand CC BY-SA 4.0