New answers tagged

1

Take the sentence, "Adam committed theft." If there is enough evidence to give this statement the truth value of 'True', we do so; if there is enough evidence to give this statement the truth value of 'False', we do so. The problem arises when there is not enough evidence to give the statement any truth value. The philosopher can simply refuse to assign the ...


0

The realtor is the agent of the seller. The ethical violations come in when you attempt to induce the realtor to do something that is against the interests of his client. That is, whenever you attempt to change the realtor from being the seller's agent into your agent, that's an ethical violation. For example: If you tried to induce the realtor to hide ...


0

In UK law, it is the expression of the moral sentiment that in a just but imperfect society "It is better that ninety-nine guilty people go free than that one innocent person be unjustly convicted." At a practical level, as pointed out in other examples, it helps to preserve the freedom of the individual and prevent society falling into a totalitarian ...


0

I think your question is not a philosophy question but more of an ethics question. It sounds like the question you are asking could be answered by asking "would the subjective requirement hurt/damage someone else?". ex: it is illegal to build a granny flat behind my house in my city with out approval because it affects the economy, I build a granny flat to ...


1

It does not have to be right or wrong in an absolute sense. It is a very practical disposition necessary to a prosperous society. As a law abiding citizen that might one day get wrongly accused, it is your best interest that it is up to the cops to prove you are guilty rather than up to you to prove you did nothing wrong. For example, if your neighbour is ...


1

One important factor that has not been addressed is the sociological function of clothing. In general, clothing is a way to non-verbally communicate. The easiest way to show this is that in modern society wearing clothing that displays a symbol implies that you support what that symbol represents (e.g. wearing a band's t-shirt implies you like their music)....


2

The presumption of innocence in law serves the same purpose as the null hypothesis in science. The purpose is to produce an accurate outcome in relation to the facts at hand and the seriousness of the question to be settled. Criminal trials begin at the null hypothesis: the defendant’s actions, whatever they might have been, were not within the range of ...


1

The moral rationalism with which Hume is concerned in the Treatise is roughly the view that reason can both ascertain the proper (morally correct) goals of action and motivate us to pursue - to act on - them. In effect you ask why, on what grounds, Hume denies that even if reason could ascertain the goals of action (which it can't), it could not motivate us ...


-2

I believe what you say is right,people like Elon Musk are indirectly doing that,they make their employees work really really hard especially during the initial phases of the startup(I have read his autobiography). He cheats them by making less time being available to them for their families. I am not personally against Mr. Musk infact I am his fan,but the ...


0

'Innocent until proven guilty' is a principle of rational law, meant to ensure that the proper person is convicted of a crime. Any system of rational law starts from the common-sense principle that a person who commits a crime should be held accountable in proportion to the nature and severity of the crime. This is true whatever model of justice one uses — ...


0

The usual take on 'using' another humam being, when this is morally wrong, is that it involves action initiated by oneself in order to secure one's own ends. I use someone, treat them as a mere means, if (say) I lie to them purely in order to get their consent to something that is for my own benefit. But the case described is nothing like this. The person ...


0

Guilty till innocent isn't right because if the person did not commit the crime, it would have had unfair difficulties finding a job for example, but if you take the person for innocent, its status in the society will remain unchanged. If somebody gives you an apple and tells you it is bad,you won't eat it,no matter what the reality is,so something gets lost,...


2

Innocent until proven guilty is primarily a legal concept, as far as I know. It can be loosely translated NOT PUNISHED until proven guilty. It isn't hard to understand: Would you want to be punished for a crime you didn't commit? Outside the courtroom, the maxim "innocent until proven guilty" is sometimes turned upside down. In time of war, for example, a ...


1

Most people agree that racism is wrong, but many disagree why it is wrong. I claim that racism is a form of prejudice that is unethical because it is unjust. A just form of prejudice is something like prejudice against murderers. Murderers form an ethical category so it is just for society to be prejudiced against them, i.e. by putting them all in jail. ...


1

tl;dr: We help others because It makes us feel better. It is part of the collective aspect of the human species. Ted has already criticized the article, and I agree with him. But refuting the argument the article makes to not help the weak is only half the answer. Are there any reasons why I should help? Ted gives us two reasons: Simple joy, and ...


-1

Am I being very prejudiced by thinking like this? By the semantical definition of prejudice, yes. You are assuming things about this person based on prior experiences you've had with (or heard about) other people in similar clothing. Regardless of whether we're talking about ragged clothing, stylish clothing, skin color, gender, or any other observable ...


15

Failure as a teacher Your question is built on the underlying premise that failure is the best possible teacher. Failure can definitely teach you things, but if you reason that it is provably the best teacher, the educational system should be reformed into not teaching anything and instead only providing exams, as failing on the exams should teach you what ...


9

It seems to me that the emphasis on weakness is a red herring. Why help the weak? Because we ought to (at least in some cases according to most ethical theories) help other people, and sometimes those people who we ought to help happen to be in a state of "weakness". If the question becomes "why should I help other people?", several answers are available. ...


36

Wow, that was a gob-smackingly arrogant article the OP linked. If anyone is curious how Nietzschean philosophy was co-opted by 1930s Fascists into an ideology of racial superiority, read that article and you'll see the link. So, first, let's examine the straw-man in the argument here. The author begins in the first two sentence by equating 'weakness' with '...


0

I didn't read the article you have given here. By helping others don't we steal the opportunity of being a better man from them? I liked this part much. Usually we may doubt as you say. While asking this question, your thought is only about them. The main thing you should bear in mind while asking this types of question is that you should try to ...


1

A few thoughts in passing. This polarity of weak and strong could only ever apply to forces, measured relatively to one another — how could they really directly refer to individuals, or even collectives, in insolation from anything else? So first, the distinction weak/strong hints at a perspectivism of forces, such that we can ask how forces could be ...


2

"The weak" is not properly defined, and a lot of suppositions are being taken in the article before having a proper definition. Anyway, the key element is usually money (ergo, "the weak" are poor people), since money represents our synthetic contribution to society, which could globe all relevant dimensions of capabilities. In such case, the answer is we ...


1

One of the weaknesses of the Western philosophical tradition - something that Existentialism and Absurdism tried to address — is that Western philosophy discounts psychology (broadly put). It implicitly presumes that things must have reasons in the analytical, intellectual sense, and that leads to some unnatural conclusions. For instance, one might wonder ...


2

But clothing feels more like a consequence of that person's life and behavior. This is the statement where you go wrong, just as a person can't decide to be born white/black/Asian/gay/straight not everybody can be born in mid to high income households. Take a child that is born in a household with (extremely)poor parents. He or she will not be able to get ...


2

Them being able to help you back is the obvious reason, but as you posted that is not something you agree with. Because your goal seems to be to make them better, which kinda makes you answer your own question. But let's take this bit out of your post It felt like I was not giving them the opportunity to fail, which is by far the best teacher in the ...


1

If 'the World is absurd - without any meaning or end result' then if caring is absurd, so is not-caring. 'Why should I care about anyone?' and 'Why shouldn't I care about someone - or everyone?' - both questions are themselves absurd as are any answers to them. 'Why should I care?' has no special salience; it's just itself one more absurd question among all ...


0

Lets turn off emotions for a minute and look from nature's point of view. In the end your question all boils down to the statement "nothing really matters". And what that means, is that we can either live or die in any way we want, since nothing matters. If nothing matters, possible cases are: 1) We choose to die. 2) We choose to live, and do whatever we ...


0

We care due to pragmatic reasons, not by altruism. As individuals, our final goal is to survive (any other goal is subject to being alive). Our probabilities of survival increase if we survive as a group, so we care about the rest, about every member. Therefore, in practice, the survival of the individual is subject to the survival of the group (that's why ...


0

It would probably help to point out there is no such thing as saving life, rather prolonging life. You are talking about shortening a life to try and lengthen others. Considering you have no way of knowing the sum total of lengthed lives and what use they will be put to, then it would be pure arrogance at least to even consider such an action


-1

Do you have four healthy organs? In that case you had the choice of giving your own life, committing murder, or doing nothing. Which makes it murder. Alternatively, did one of the four have three healthy organs? In that case they could have thrown dice, not to decide who is going to die, but to decide who is not being saved. Kill one of four who would die ...


0

There is no way to make happiness comparable from one person to another. Happiness is an internal state that is largely dependent on the things going on inside the individual's head. The identical outward experiences will make one person hugely happy, and bore the next person to discomfort. I want to attend this lecture on moral philosophy, but my friend ...


1

We do not need to understand utility as increasing happiness (and minimizing pain) in a narrow sense. It is probably best to understand “happiness” or “pleasure“ here in a wide sense as „good feeling“. Measuring this could be done with surveys or other scientific methods or by inference from your own experiences etc., i.e. by taking your best intuitive guess....


1

At a minimum, I believe Google's decision-makers know that humans place a value on interaction with other humans. So at a minimum, they would be knowingly benefiting from deception, in the form of receiving (or selling the opportunity to receive) fraudulent goodwill. Perhaps the biggest harm would come from how this fraud would impact third parties... Some ...


0

There can only be an onus if something must be done. If there is a problem but no need or no urgent need to solve it, then there is no onus. It never follows that because A recommends X as a solution, X is desirable or to be implemented just because a critic cannot suggest an alternative. The solution, X, might be worse than the problem. It does not cease ...


1

In general, I would say no. If an engineer evaluates a bridge design and determines it faulty, the engineer is not responsible for designing a new bridge, if an economist evaluates an economic proposal by some goverment and finds faults, that economist is not responsible to devise a new policy, and so on. Even if the critique is by some measure shown to be ...


-1

"The crux is that ethically/morally I do not believe that a person's self-perception and wishes to be recognised a certain way should take priority when we disagree" In essence, you think your opinion on this person's identity is more important than how they see themselves. If the situation was reversed and your friend decided that because of your ...


0

I will offer suggestions for direction to explore, rather than sources. As one poster noted, Nietzsche sounds like a good candidate for what you are looking for. He held that those of powerful will were not constrained by social morality, which is pretty much "radical moral pluralism". And it is not Nietzsche alone, but most of the Existentialist movement ...


3

This is explained in his book If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him! (1972), where the shortlist of eternal truths first occured. Before he first uses the sentence, there is the following paragraph: When we lay claim to the evil in ourselves, we no longer need fear its occurring outside of our control. For example, a patient comes into therapy ...


2

I think this phrase comes from belief in the idealism of goodness, as for example in Plato and Confucius, at least as concerns human conduct, meaning that in the context of composite beings such as nations, cities, various associations and, significantly, the single person with his own will and action, evil is confusion as to how composite beings function ...


1

The solution: Do not overload pronoun-use with any kind of ontological claims. If you adopt the rule that you are using whatever pronoun for a person that that person prefers (guess as well as you can if they haven't told you), then your own understanding of how gender should work becomes mostly irrelevant for social interactions. Since now by definition "...


0

Maintaining integrity would mean you want to be honest whilst having strong moral principles. Integrity is a question of not having two faces - if you really believe something, why would you “say one thing here and another thing there”. This in itself is almost an impossible task to do as humans, since we so frequently make mistakes which undermine our “...


5

Well, I think we do have to consider the elephant in the room, here: do you want to keep these people as friends, are are you willing to sacrifice their friendship for the sake of your principles? Because that seems to be the dilemma you are facing. People who have reached the point where they want to be addressed with alternate pronouns are going to be ...


Top 50 recent answers are included