New answers tagged

1

Based on what you said: Thus, morality in my understanding does not depend on context, culture, time, place etc. However, I believe rationality is context dependent. Sometimes an immoral action can be justified as rational action depending on situations. For example, killing to save owns life. Murder is always immoral but may be ration in some cases. If ...


1

The relationship between reason and morality is most extensively and famously addressed in Kant's "Critique of Practical Reason." In this context, "practical" refers to judgments of morality or the determination of proper actions. To understand the connection really brings in the whole Kantian system, on which I'm no expert, but let me ...


2

The term 'morality' refers to a (any) systematic approach to 'proper' behavior in human society. In general, it establishes a set of human values, outlines how those values can be achieved, and offers some justifications for its value structures and practices. The troublesome aspect of this definition is the scare-quoted term 'proper'. Speaking ...


0

No idea who Mill is. But, if you are asking that same question without "Mill's" presence, it technically has to be... I don't believe anybody would speak anything unless they had their own ethical principals to back it up. And if they did? If would only be because they were taught to believe something and don't believe in their selves enough to ...


0

By remembering: "There but for fortune go you or I". I've argued elsewhere that the appeal of Rawls' theory comes from it being an example of intersubjectivity, which undergirds conceptual communication and abstract reasoning, following the Private Language Argument. Discussed here: According to the major theories of concepts, where do meanings ...


1

On the moral epistemology side, one view is that we can know basic moral beliefs by moral intuition, called Ethical Intuitionism. For example, Michael Huemer's Ethical Intuitionism (2005). This can be a form of foundationalism, where moral intuition constitutes non-inferential justification for moral beliefs, a moral sense of sorts. If this is correct, then ...


1

Thanks for the alert that Machiavelli did not originate or even directly repeat the original Ovid quote "Exitus acta probat." I was searching The Prince for it and couldn't find it. Note, however, that, regardless of Machiavelli's intent in his book and while many have translated the Latin phrase to mean "The end justifies the means," ...


0

In projective geometry (specifically, in the projective plane with homogeneous coordinates) there are at least four significant ways to construct a circle. The first is as a smooth curve, which is one of the conic sections (the others being the ellipse, parabola, hyperbola and, degenerately, certain apparently straight lines). Another is as the set of points ...


1

Science is specifically an empirical and data driven study. It has so far worked incredibly well when the goal is predicting future results. And in the process of predicting future results, modeling reality with math and scientific theories allows for incredibly precise predictions, like measuring down to 10^-17 cm's in quantum mechanical experiments. At ...


0

I believe what you are describing is the Is-Ought Problem. 'Is' statements are about the state the world. 'Ought' statements are about what we should do in response to the state of the world. The Is-Ought Problem is about how do you get from the former to the latter. The most famous answer was provided by Hume; you can't. He said that a logical deduction can ...


1

I know the principle seems consequentialist at first sight, but my point is that by defining what's right not in terms of how good the actual consequences of an action are, but in terms of our reasons to believe those consequences would be good, I am not appealing directly to consequences. the reasons to believe those consequences would be good must be ...


-1

Morality exist because of the need to maximize happiness, and happiness exists because that's how we are programmed by biology to ensure our survival. But if we don't survive (EDIT as a species) we dont have to worry about morality anymore


0

You are correct that mathematics continues to have mysteries that the passage of the years has not erased. Chief among these is the fact that we come to know and understand mathematical concepts such as shape and number by their physical instantiations, yet there can never be a perfect correspondence between the physical world and the world of theoretical ...


0

you have to think globally with utilitarianism. if writing poetry is necessary for your well being, then it's utilitarian to write poetry.....Because if you didnt, you'd be too miserable anyways to help others. That's why it's ok to take care of yourself with utilitarianism, because your happiness counts and because you can't help others if you are miserable....


2

Hence, how could we truly claim that those old problems were actually being correctly solved up to our current dates? Any elaborate thinking requires representations (like words, or drawings) and all representations are approximations. Live with it.


1

There's a lot of fallacies on the dialog. Here, with names: I recently argued with a friend about veganism. My position was basically that everyone who can allow a dietery change in their lives ought to be vegan. Bad argument. Fallacy: appeal to possibility, meaning that if something is possible, it is mandatory. The possibility to change diet is not an ...


0

Do we have the right to kill animals, plants, etc? I don't think we have the right because we are at the top of the food chain. However, most humans are required to kill plants and animals in order to survive. I believe every living organism should do whatever is needed to survive, even if it means killing other living organisms. Life is all about ...


3

Welcome, SDZ It is not clear, as Ameet Sharma points out, what your friend means by 'being on top of the food chain'. But between (1) any plausible meaning it might have and (2) the claim that one species (ours) has a right to exploit others (say, sheep or cattle) by killing and eating them there is a logical gap. (2) does not follow from (1) unless (1) is ...


0

TL;DR Because the wrong of rape is categorically different from the wrong of violating property rights. The latter is about a kind of disturbance of a relation of interest in a thing. That is what the said "above remarks" emphasised, the kind of relation all proprietorial relations share. The authors hold that body and self have a relation between ...


2

Other responses claim that moral rightness depends on foreseen, foreseeable, intended, or likely consequences, rather than actual ones. -Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's Entry on Consequentialism, Section 4: Which Consequences? Actual vs. Expected Consequentialisms Your philosophy has traditionally been categorized as Consequentialist. If you want, you ...


1

Your principle could be both consequentialist and dentological. In what it requires of you, in the obligation it imposes, it is plainly consequentalist but that says nothing about the considerations that make it obligatory. It could be a requirement of God (as in an ethics of divine commands) or a requirement of justice, neither of these requirements having ...


0

Just to offer a contrary opinion, I believe your maxim could be seen as deontological. It is stated as an imperative, it does not assume foreknowledge of consequences and outcomes, only "reasons to believe." It is not hypothetical, it transcends the interests of any given individual. Above all, it conforms somewhat to the Kantian idea of an ...


Top 50 recent answers are included