New answers tagged

0

Long post, sorry! As a person who has made a few LD debate cases framed around both philosophies, I have a lot to say and will do my best to answer this. However, since I'm not a philosophy student, you may take my words with a grain of salt if a more knowledgeable person corrects me (and I highly encourage anyone who wants to correct me to do so). Also, I'...


3

There are three answers, so normally I would refrain from writing my own. However, I note with some displeasure that none of those answers actually answer OP's question as asked: How would different ethical frameworks draw boundaries on when it is ethical to criticize an entity? So, let's quickly run through some of the more popular options. ...


0

There are a number of variables to consider. For example... Will your criticism help fix a problem? Will it help hold a bad person accountable? Will it educate people who hear your criticism? Who is your audience? Will criticizing someone somehow make you a better person? In addition to asking when it's "OK" to criticize someone, we might ask when it's NOT ...


0

Any X, if he is intelligent, can criticize Y for his wrong action or imperfection of his action. But the main thing is whether it was possible for X if he were Y. Also, he must be able to prove that his criticism was right. You will get information about different types of criticism from this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varieties_of_criticism Most ...


0

This is only a partial answer considering only a psychiatric framework. The ethical framework supporting it would be any that acknowledges that the presence of the criticism implies that there exists evil somewhere either in the entity being criticized or in the entity doing the criticism. A divine command ethical theory might be most receptive to the idea. ...


1

Some ethicists would argue that the acts you could possibly do with a bunch of money differ strongly in their moral value. For instance might giving the money to charity (assuming that the charity does not misuse the money, realizes effective projects etc.) save or improve the lives of children in dire circumstances. This arguably is of higher value than ...


0

Argumentation schemes are one way to categorize the differences in arguments that may help provide the hierarchy the OP is looking for. Douglas Walton describes the problem of constructing argumentation schemes for informal logic as two-fold: (pages 178-9) The task of distinguishing between arguments and non-arguments (such as explanations) in natural ...


1

The way to wrap your head around this (as is true of most things in philosophy) is to step up and back to see the larger ground that contractualism is embedded in. Contractualism is part of moral/ethical philosophy, and one of the foundational concerns of moral/ethical philosophy is the question of why we could/should/do behave morally. There have been a few ...


0

Your question is appallingly uninformed about the kinds of harms that pornography can do. Have you considered the amount of child pornography circulating on the internet and easily downloadable by just about anyone? And of which the tech companies have deliberately claimed no responsibility by pretending that they aren't publishing companies whilst ...


0

To avoid any misunderstandings, I argue against "the perverted faculty argument" by trying to lead this ad absurdum by analogies, as in the following question: Wouldn't it be reprehensible to prevent pain sensations through medication, since pain generally has an important function in a person's life. How do I know which function is very important? You can ...


1

If we add the premise that all innocent children go to heaven when they die, then it would be most ethical to murder as many children as possible to prevent them from sinning and possibly going to hell! Thus really, how can any theist justify not having and then murdering as many children as possible?


0

There is absolutely no empirical evidence that masturbation, anal, oral sex or homosexual sex diminishes the faculty to procreate. It could even be argued that, by releasing sexual impulse in a contraceptive fashion, it can help people who are already parents to keep their offspring at a sustainable quantity, securing the long term survival of the human ...


0

Your argument is based on the following premises: P1 - Every person who is exists AND goes to heaven represents an infinite amount of happiness. P2 - More than 50% of everyone who is born will go to heaven. Your conclusion is: C - having as many children as possible is the greatest possible good, because it generates an infinite amount ...


2

The Catholic Church allows so-called natural birth control methods, such as the temperature method, calendar method, checking the consistency of the cervical mucus, perhaps also hormone level measurement. Together they are just as effective as using condoms. I don’t understand the ban here and the permission there at all. If you want to become platonic now, ...


2

My biggest problems with the classical Thomistic theory of natural law, which is the philosophical premise of the perverted faculty argument, are the following: What about the compatibility of natural law with the Christian doctrine of original sin? After all, I don't want to act according to sin. If the whole of (human) nature is sinful, i.e. morally ...


2

Couldn't Feser simply say that, for example, contraceptive sex is just bad sex and there's nothing morally evil about it? When I am a man but behave like a sissy, I also violate natural law because I distance myself from the masculine form? Let's assume that a man wants to use a condom to avoid possible procreation during sex. This is a clear bad ...


1

One could argue for responsibility for one's actions in multiple ways. The easiest would be to say we intuitively assign responsibility to our own and other's actions, which can be seen from our pride, praise, contempt, etc. for actions. Therefore, since moral responsibility is intuitive or self-evident, the burden of proof is on the opposition. But, of ...


1

There are a few different approaches to this: Moral realist: People may have disagreements about what qualifies as moral, but ultimately all things that are truly moral partake in some genuinely and objectively moral characteristics. A society can therefore be objectively morally degenerate or corrupt. Moral structuralist: The morals of a society are those ...


0

Whether or not you think pure reason alone can lead to a grounded ethical frame would be dependent on how idealistic a view you take on ethics. You should also ask yourself what you think it means for an ethical statement to be grounded. Can something only be grounded if it comes from god? Or does it just need to be a part of an agreed upon code of ethics? ...


1

The psychiatrist M. Scott Peck in trying to construct a "psychology of evil" provides a "working definition" that he illustrates with case studies: (page 43) Evil, then, for the moment, is that force, residing either inside or outside of human beings, that seeks to kill life or liveliness. And goodness is its opposite. Goodness is that which promotes life ...


0

Any logic system needs some finite number of assumptions before it can function. These are generally invisible and permeate the thoughts of thinkers in the form of value systems. Your example is in fact a collision between two different value systems, rather than a logical inconsistency. The older system values the propagation of race as one of the most ...


1

There is some evidence that exposure to "literature" could make us more empathetic. Books with written from a first person or third person close perspective can reveal the minds of others and help us identify closer with their ways of thinking. So it could be argued that those who regularly consume fiction with interiority develop patterns of thinking ...


1

Most people aren't living maximally altruistic lives, I don't think anyone would dispute that. But what would that even mean? Everyone needs rest. Without it we burn out and stop functioning effectively. The maximally altrustic individual is not the person who devotes every waking moment to altruistic endeavours, but the person who plans their life such ...


7

The "escape from reality to fiction" is termed escapism, see The Ethics of Escape by Coulombe. There has been empirical research on escapism as a coping mechanism since 1940s, see The Good and the Bad of Escaping to Virtual Reality in The Atlantic. Ethically, despite the negative connotation, it is not as harshly condemned as one might think. Tolkien, for ...


0

Firstly I do not find any difference between the conservation of species and that of nature. It is the same thing. There can be no nature without species, well not on Earth anyway. The cow is an interesting example. The original species is extinct, and the present cows are an example of human engineered evolution. If we did not engineer the evolution of ...


1

The OP's concern is whether the time spent reading fiction rather than solving "a world problem or two" is a poor investment of one's resources. One place to look is effective altruism. Wikipedia describes this philosophy as follows: Effective altruism differs from other philanthropic practices because of its emphasis on quantitatively comparing ...


2

I like this question. Personally I don't think we can since that before the event actually happened, there was no way of knowing what exactly will be the output. Assume for contradiction that we can see this as immoral. Following your line of logic we play a thought experiment. A is a trail that has P1 probability of being successful. Say that the ...


0

Since you are immediately talking about consistency and completeness, let's start from the computation theory, rather than the ethics or the presentational logic. Those systems that have well-defined axioms and permit integer arithmetic are notoriously not complete via some version of Goedel's reasoning. It does not matter what the corresponding semantics ...


Top 50 recent answers are included