Hot answers tagged

4

Eudaimonia, happiness, and well-being The standard definition of eudaimonia used to be that it denotes happiness. In recent decades a more satisfactory rendering has been found in notions such as those of well-being and human flourishing. These are far better than the older, 'happiness'. 'Happiness' suggests a merely pleasant and enjoyable state or ...


2

Tim Jankowiak writes the following about Kant's ethics: Kant also argued that his ethical theory requires belief in free will, God, and the immortality of the soul. Although we cannot have knowledge of these things, reflection on the moral law leads to a justified belief in them, which amounts to a kind [of] rational faith. Kant attempts to provide a ...


2

Ok, first point... The seven deadly sins do not relate to actions or behaviors specifically, but to the moral contexts surrounding actions and behaviors. They are not mutually exclusive; they are more like aspects of a single problematic. The point of this isn't to say: "This action represents wrath; that action represents greed." The goal is to be able to ...


2

What you are asking revolves around questions of culpability in the philosophy of law. To be culpable from the WP entry 'culpability': From a legal perspective, culpability describes the degree of one's blameworthiness in the commission of a crime or offense. Except for strict liability crimes, the type and severity of punishment often follow the degree ...


1

I don't know of any commonality of philosophical response to the predicament you describe. It is hard to see how the mere state of Daniel's being in love with Rose could be 'sinful' since it is (presumably) involuntary : I at least can't recall deciding to be or remain in love with someone. Nor is there, as you describe the situation, anything sinful or as ...


1

Is Mercy for the Merciful, Justice for the Just and Injustice for the Unjust constitute a type of Justice? No. First two actions are justice. But on the whole, this is injustice. This would become justice if you replace the word injustice with justice. The action taken against the unjust is for reminding them of the importance of justice in life. Often it ...


1

I can't readily agree that to show mercy is to act unjustly towards oneself. ... we may characterize mercy as the putative ethical value that justifies leniency in the infliction of punishment that is due in accordance with justice. Only someone who has cultivated a rational sensitivity to this value in thought, feeling and action has the virtue of ...


1

Welcome, mikeymike234. There is no single thing that makes murder wrong. And murder may not be wrong in the case of people who cause vast evil but I set such cases aside since they are not the ones you are mainly thinking of. At least that's my impression. Walter Sinnott-Armstrong and Franklin G Miller explain two grounds on which murder is, or might ...


1

Whether murder is wrong or not would depend on one's ethical theory. In a Jewish or Christian divine command theory murder (or abortion) would be wrong because believers interpret the Torah or Bible as prohibiting such behavior through divine commands. Their God is a law-giver. Here is how Michael W. Austin describes a divine command theory: Roughly, ...


1

The simple answer is that humanity is adapting. Natural selection and the genetic evolution that results from it is just one way populations adapt to their environment, or, rather, to the constraints imposed by their environment. We are also adapting by changing our way of life, by developing new technology, by developing a better understanding of nature ...


1

Here is how Ronald Aronson describes what is going on in Albert Camus's The Fall: This sense of moral complexity is most eloquent in his short novel The Fall, whose single character, Clamence, has been variously identified as everyman, a Camus-character, and a Sartre-character. He was all of these. Clamence is clearly evil, guilty of standing by as a ...


1

A lie is a lie, morally, socially, or otherwise. Even the less intelligent will find out that a lie is a lie. It just takes more time. Worse, the liar has somehow suggested that you can lie. We have a commitment to this and generations to cherish truthfulness and honesty irrespective of the consequences.


1

Briefly, no. According to Grotius an act is no more or less moral than another in the way a mother was no more or less pregnant with you or your sibling. "Moral deceit" - like a joke or fiction story - is simply a false statement which hurts no one. Why no moral relativism? This question is a non-sequitur. It assumes some scale of morality designed by ...


1

One place to look for arguments similar to the paradox of tolerance is "slippery slope" arguments. Douglas Walton offers four identifying characteristics of slippery slope arguments: One is a first step, an action or policy being considered. A second is a sequence in which this action leads to other actions. A third is a so-called gray zone or area of ...


1

Use computers as an analogy. Computers do what their program tells them to do. But computers can change their own program. (Until a few years ago, this was only a theoretical possibility; today this is already a practical reality, especially in machine learning systems.) Well, think of humans as machines that do what their program tells them to do. They are ...


1

If Hume claims that the only vice is murder, then he can restrict the discussion to murder. However, if Hume is making a claim about vice in general, and Hume acknowledges that there are actions other than murder than are correctly classified as vices, then we are free to consider other examples of vices. Consider the example of cheating in a sporting ...


1

According to a consequentialist ethics, more poor people would have access to knowledge. Therefore pirated copies of books would be acceptable once this practice promotes diffusion of things commonly enjoyed by rich people.


1

Hard Objective View: Metaphysical presupposition (MP): physicalism. Truth 1: animals are not the same, not even humans are entirely same. Even if they have some similarities. Truth 1 implies e.g.: There do not actually (as per MP) exist universal rights, laws that sort of thing. Since animals are indifferent even inside a species, then their rights ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible