New answers tagged

0

Harm is subjective, every person may have a different opinion. It's not useful to defend a notion that a single individual should define an objective truth about something known to be subjective. Instead the philosophic approach would be to talk about harm as seen by the claimant, ham as seen by the defendant, harm as seen by an expert, harm as seen by the ...


1

I am currently reading about euthanasia and encountered the argument that mercy is a morally different category from pity. It is written there, that mercy implies a "re-establishment of equality", whereas pity does not have this implication. The main difference is that mercy means taking an action, pity does not. The action may be as weak as an ...


1

Welcome, Klumpi The conceptual relationship between mercy and pity is a genuine philosophical issue and it deserves investigation. Following your pointer, I shall not bring euthanasia into the discussion. On the surface, mercy is a matter of action ('an act of mercy') while pity is an emotion. Mercy can be motivated by pity but they belong to distinct ...


0

I do not believe that there are any "ethicists" who subscribe to this epistemology. But it is akin to what has become known as Identitarian Epistemology, which is based is based upon the following premises: Being part of identity group X necessarily involves certain experiences which are unique to that group. These experiences are a necessary ...


1

Mercy seemingly means to recognize that someone is guilty of something, but still "have Mercy" on him anyways, and overlook the faults for purposes of giving him something, or arguing one's case in court, "pity" doesn't necessarily mean to think of someone as doing anything wrong in the first place, it implies just feeling bad for someone ...


9

The short answer is J.S. Mill's "harm" principle" In an attempt to use Mill’s own argument against him, critics often cite the frequently misunderstood harm principle. This principle, which states that liberty should be restricted only to the extent that it prevents one person from causing harm to another (e.g. the right to raise my fist ...


0

It is sometimes called "The Drug Dealer's Defense". It is also related to "The Tragedy of the Commons".


1

OP says " 2. it provides a safe and reliable, sturdy home-living environment for the slaves, with sufficient food and basic medical care, during the great depression there are some personal accounts from ex-slaves saying when they were a slave they never went hungry, as opposed to in the depression." The OP has two major premises. This is the ...


2

The act- and rule-utiitarian distinction It does not follow, because Richard Brandt first formulated the distinction, that therefore utilitarian philosophers had not recognised a distinction long before. Their recognition can be shown by their general discussion of ethical matters. Such is precisely the case with John Stuart Mill. He very evidently possessed ...


0

"Is there anything inherently immoral or wrong with slavery?" No, and it is absolutely necessary. "If it should be true that the Greeks perished through their slavedom then another fact is much more certain, that we shall perish through the lack of slavery." "Accordingly we must accept this cruel sounding truth that slavery is of the ...


0

Slavery is immoral if you consider it an important inalienable right of every human to be: free to live in any city (of your country) you can afford free to choose any available labor for which you are qualified free to get basic education free to get any advanced education you can afford free to gather and own private property as you can afford free to ...


0

You elide the difference between a social contract, the emergent dynamic of rulers with when a citizenry will rebel, and being born into slavery - note the differences between the First Barons War & English Civil War, and the Haiti rebellion & Jamaican Great Slave Revolt. When there was no mutually binding acceptance of the situation before, it tends ...


0

"What evidence do you have that evil exists at all?" He would probably say back to you Meaning, the assumption is based on the premise that "If G-d is all good, and the source of all and if evil exists, then how can that be", but one might make the opposite argument "if G-d is all good, then evil can't exist", one would need to ...


0

The foundation of morality is the knowledge of good and evil, which itself is based on the concepts of pain and pleasure <== and those two, sure, are 100% subjective experiences! It is having them that's 100% not. You, me, everyone share the knowledge, the same understanding of what it means to be in pain, what would put us ourselves in pain, and how we ...


0

Answer I still believe this Q&A belongs on English Language & Usage, but since it hasn't been deleted yet, no sense in letting the question going on unanswered. So... Like Guy Inchabald, I'm not familiar with a single word in English that meets your specifications, however, there are some related phrases. First, consider the phrase 'The road to hell ...


0

Your first paragraph seems to reflect some confusion about what share ownership means. A share just is part ownership of a company. If you are a part owner of a business then you participate in its future fortunes, both positive and negative. If the company can afford to pay a dividend then all of its owners will receive it, but it is not an entitlement. A ...


2

As noted above, it certainly depends on the moral framework. For Aristotle's virtue ethics, the accumulation of wealth by means of trade may fall under pleonexia, an ignoble trait. But, of course, the philosophers of his day lived largely and unproblematically off "shareholdings" in land and slave labor. For Aquinas and the medieval moralists, ...


2

Depends on who you ask, since moral is quite subjective. "Socialists": It's immoral, if the stock owner does not participate in production, since then the stock owner merely "parasites" on the fruits of labor of others and gains profit "by not doing anything". "Marketists": It's moral, since the investor takes a risk ...


2

I think Kant's notion of duty isn't so much as a responsibility or necessary completion of any task that one is tasked to do. Rather, he is referring to "duty" as a moral imperative in the sense that, we all ought to do things, especially moral things, that can be willied as universal laws i.e. these things can also be done by others. So, if being ...


2

Let's put the goblin aside and concentrate on humans. This raises genuine ethical issues. What would an evil creature be? A being that is in some way intentionally extremely destructive of value. Behind this abstract formula I refer to a being that commits mass murders, that tortures children for amusement, that burns alive a lover who has jilted him, &c....


Top 50 recent answers are included