New answers tagged

2

So we often use the word "corruption" to think of it as something that has happened to a person or group to render them unfit for office - one has been "corrupted" by power, and their actions taken in pursuit of their own ends bear the hallmarks of a moral ill. But the etymology points to a different meaning, being the prefix "co-&...


0

@Kgncarma04 that's a very thoughtful question and I like your thinking process. To answer your question: Ethics encompasses morality, morality is a branch of the ethics. Ehtics is considered with what is right and wrong independent of anything, or it can be in the form of morality and it uses society to determine what is ethically right or wrong. So really ...


1

The ethics of “tricking people in general” may be extended all the way to political economy. It strikes me that revealing people’s receptivity to prejudice and bigotry is demonstrating to them that they’ve been tricked in a different way, I.e., they have already been misled into bigoted ways of thinking and acting, or else they are “tricking themselves”. ...


0

[...] is it correct to say most ethical theories (other than egoism) would say that I need to let the other person receive the benefit? No, because you have not told us enough to apply most ethical theories in the first place. Let's go through some of the more popular theories: Act utilitarianism is indifferent between the two courses of action you ...


0

Conifold's comment basically answers this question; I will enlarge slightly upon it here to show how the Copenhagen Effect pops up in, of all places, engineering enterprises. If you are a quality control engineer in a "troubled" factory, then it is a given that you, the discoverer of a quality problem, own the solution to that problem regardless of ...


1

Iirc the typical immediate solution is to divide good and duty, so that utilitarians can say that a choice can be descriptively best without being what we choose based on imperfect/incomplete application of the utility principle. Whether this defeats the point of this utilitarianism is another question, concerning for instance the strength of the ...


1

The very idea of "ought" itself implies the possibility of choice by a free will, as opposed to some other choice. Thus it stands apart from purely mechanical causality. Where no freedom of will exists the "ought" does not exist or cannot be properly applied. We may say that the dog who eats the sandwich on the kitchen counter, ought not ...


2

"Ought implies can" means that if you can not, in fact, do something, you are not, in fact, obliged to do something, and therefore, to say that someone ought to do something implies that the person can do it.


1

Two of the most famous (or at least known-by-me) uses of ought-implies-can work exactly as you don't think they should. The first is Anselm's argument for the Incarnation: Only God can atone for sin. Only humanity ought to atone for sin. Therefore, there can be a being who is both God and man, without confusion or conflation. Or Kant says: when you do ...


0

There are other reasons advanced for penalising criminals, for example moral retribution and atonement, but we can let that pass here. Almost all such reasons apply not just to the specific incident but to the principles underlying the motivation for the criminal act. If somebody has seen fit to take the law into their own hands, such as destroying somebody ...


3

Punishment is logically (1) a penalty (fine, imprisonment, community service, &c.) (2) of an offender (3) for an offence, a crime committed. There is also (4) a requirement that the penalty be imposed by human agency - some natural diaster befalling the offender does not count as punishment - and (5) that the penalty be imposed by an authority of some ...


0

When talking about statues - I will assume, you are talking about the current situation in the world about some people removing statues what have deep values to one side, but none to the others, because they don't come from the same environment and rooting. - That context is highly important in establishing punishment to avoid public unrest and decent, there ...


0

Present apologies for previous generations' misdeeds A present-day Australian apologising for the treatment of Aborigines by his forbears? You probe the moral position that supports or explains this practice. A historical person - a forbear in this case - can only have acted on the moral beliefs they had. Only such beliefs can have provided their motivation ...


0

Standards are never universal or consistent enough to be anachronistic as such. In America, we have records of prominent founders acknowledging the wrong of slavery, even guilt and dread over this, and indeed abolitionism was part of the ethical milieu thereafter through the Civil War. Kant later, and las Casas earlier (and much more intensively), are ...


1

The philosophical works of Russell, Wittgenstein, and others in the Analytic Philosophy tradition of that era are still of great importance. Their ideal may have failed — they never managed to bridge the philosophical gap between logic and the objective world to produce the fully 'scientific' logic they had desired — but there is no denying that they made ...


0

The woman represents the nurturing and conserving part of Society. No great man has emerged in the course of History, who is not a fabric of his education and "kinderstube" (Nursery). This is what brings forth and also smothers great thinkers. How should a Genius be like? We're like Circus animals doing a trick while the whip is lashing. Nietzsche ...


0

Nietzsche "Ecce Homo" "On the Genealogy of Morals" "Thus Spoke Zarathustra Kierkegaard "Either-or" "Fear and Trembling" "Diary of a Seducer" C. S. Lewis "Screwtape letters" "Mere Christianity" "The lion the witch and the wardrobe" Salinger "Catcher in the Rye" W. ...


0

Do all actions proceed from a need to satisfy one's own personal discontent? The term needs is more adequate than 'discontent', when speaking of different types and levels of them. Effectively, Abraham Maslow proposes that our needs need to be satisfied at different levels. First, our survival needs (have something to eat, drink), then, safety, belonging, ...


0

All of the answers offered stem from an acceptance of the materialist/behaviorist model of human nature in which the person is a'kingdom within a kingdom' thus only individualist subjective motives are considered. A completely different understanding of human nature is Spinoza's which recognizes that all humans, irrespective of culture or ethnicity, share ...


0

First, while an individual exists, his main priority is to survive, otherwise there's no possibility of performing no other act of lesser priority. Any other priority is secondary. If one wants to be a doctor, go to the cinema or get sex, one first needs to be alive. Second, any system of behavioral regulation, like morals, ethics, law, religion, etc. is ...


1

Others have pointed out Hume's "you can't get an ought from an is." In other words, descriptive facts do not provide prescriptive rules. However, Kant did set out a response to this with his categorical imperative, and Einsteins' answer, while correct in one sense, may contain seeds of its refutation. The scientific urge to seek causes in nature ...


0

Correlation of accepted information can be used to construct algorithms that determine a robot‘s function. But academia alone can be cold and unforgiving. How does any of that relate to the heart and soul of a society that nurtures life? Human life in particular. Love for our fellow man comes from somewhere beyond the realm of academia. The point I’m ...


0

The claim that eugenics guides marriage practices is not an accurate explanation of the observation. The recurrent trend of the selection of partners for procreation of a common ethnicity has a far stronger foundation in psychology, in that the subconscious and somewhat inept desire that drives many to have children is to nurture a child like reflection of ...


1

I do judge Plato as a racist advocate of propaganda, and as Popper put it 'enemy of the open society'. Dawkins recently tripped up over a very similar attitude to the word eugenics that you are showing. He attempted to use the term eugenics to mean any strategic non individually decided influence on reproduction. But that's not how the term is used. It ...


2

As self-reports, all except 2 are simply true, assuming accurately reported (and you aren't lying.) But not "moral statements" at all. And 2 is a moral statement only in the unlikely case that you are God or some other presiding moral authority. In a deontic sense, at least, moral statements should be univeralizable or at least general, so cannot ...


2

Moral statements are prescriptive statements uttered within an interpersonal context. If they are descriptive of anything, they are descriptive of socially defined norms or ideals. I mean, consider a man trapped alone on a desert island. For that man, 'lying' is neither moral nor immoral; it serves no end and has no purpose. He might lie to himself, I ...


1

I think your self-interest in this case could be justified under all three approaches, except maybe the deontic. From an "invisible hand" perspective you cannot possibly know that you are "equally good" in advance and this is precisely what the rules are meant to determine. Presumably the meritocratic outcome serves to increase overall ...


Top 50 recent answers are included