New answers tagged

0

First thing, if we were to think deeply philosophical, is that we don't have any right to "advice" :). As in advising someone about cruelty to animals or any other such kind of advice whether or not I eat meat, is in my opinion not right. It should be an individual conscious decision to realize for oneself what is best, be it giving up meat or animal ...


2

I can't readily agree that to show mercy is to act unjustly towards oneself. ... we may characterize mercy as the putative ethical value that justifies leniency in the infliction of punishment that is due in accordance with justice. Only someone who has cultivated a rational sensitivity to this value in thought, feeling and action has the virtue of ...


0

If justice has no specific content one can't carry out an analysis that will yield any real content. If justice means returning punishment for a wrong, someone does you legal harm, then the law avenges you and makes the other person pay for the crime, your idea seems to work. Mercy is then not justice. It would be to remain unavenged properly and would ...


2

Ok, first point... The seven deadly sins do not relate to actions or behaviors specifically, but to the moral contexts surrounding actions and behaviors. They are not mutually exclusive; they are more like aspects of a single problematic. The point of this isn't to say: "This action represents wrath; that action represents greed." The goal is to be able to ...


1

According to a consequentialist ethics, more poor people would have access to knowledge. Therefore pirated copies of books would be acceptable once this practice promotes diffusion of things commonly enjoyed by rich people.


2

What you are asking revolves around questions of culpability in the philosophy of law. To be culpable from the WP entry 'culpability': From a legal perspective, culpability describes the degree of one's blameworthiness in the commission of a crime or offense. Except for strict liability crimes, the type and severity of punishment often follow the degree ...


0

Welcome, Moxuan ! Neither in philosophy nor in ordinary moral experience is the concept of luck unequivocal. So the first thing we have to do is to fix the concept, to decide what construction - definition or analysis - to apply to it. Three approaches to the definition or analysis of luck are relevant. They centre on control, probability, and modality. ...


0

Here is the question: If we are rationally obliged to be moral, and morality is not arbitrary, then are some decisions not freely made? There are two propositions that the antecedent of the conditional asks us to assume: We are rationally obliged to be moral. Morality is not arbitrary. Both of these may be true, but because people are still able to act ...


1

Socrates spoke of eupraxia. Eudaimonia, a theme among others in Aristotle (I make this remark because Cicero who was exhaustively informed about Athenian philosophies payed no serious attention to the now famous Nicomachean Ethics, which, in our own time, along with the Politics is considered Aristotle's chief work), is said on an analogy with the state of ...


1

Welcome, mikeymike234. There is no single thing that makes murder wrong. And murder may not be wrong in the case of people who cause vast evil but I set such cases aside since they are not the ones you are mainly thinking of. At least that's my impression. Walter Sinnott-Armstrong and Franklin G Miller explain two grounds on which murder is, or might ...


0

I think you hit on an important point. That there is a need, if we're going to understand philosophy, to put in harmony this, our, world, and our speculation on what is right or wrong, with the world that continues to exist just as much without us. You can see this in discussions on 'moral realism' and in religious meta-ethics. If you want to work these (...


0

The de facto reason is that the law owes its existence to the country, not to the intervention of reason or philosophic deliberations. The country requires "numbers" for its own protection. The country, or in Plato and Aristotle, the polis, is the place where philosophy is first raised, as something that speaks of what is good for any reasonable being, but ...


1

Whether murder is wrong or not would depend on one's ethical theory. In a Jewish or Christian divine command theory murder (or abortion) would be wrong because believers interpret the Torah or Bible as prohibiting such behavior through divine commands. Their God is a law-giver. Here is how Michael W. Austin describes a divine command theory: Roughly, ...


0

Murder is inherently wrong for it produces suffering. Humans and all other living beings naturally abstain from suffering. Imagine a person living in complete isolation, no relatives, no friends, etc. If he/she decides to commit suicide it will not be an amoral action.


4

Eudaimonia, happiness, and well-being The standard definition of eudaimonia used to be that it denotes happiness. In recent decades a more satisfactory rendering has been found in notions such as those of well-being and human flourishing. These are far better than the older, 'happiness'. 'Happiness' suggests a merely pleasant and enjoyable state or ...


1

If Hume claims that the only vice is murder, then he can restrict the discussion to murder. However, if Hume is making a claim about vice in general, and Hume acknowledges that there are actions other than murder than are correctly classified as vices, then we are free to consider other examples of vices. Consider the example of cheating in a sporting ...


2

Tim Jankowiak writes the following about Kant's ethics: Kant also argued that his ethical theory requires belief in free will, God, and the immortality of the soul. Although we cannot have knowledge of these things, reflection on the moral law leads to a justified belief in them, which amounts to a kind [of] rational faith. Kant attempts to provide a ...


1

The simple answer is that humanity is adapting. Natural selection and the genetic evolution that results from it is just one way populations adapt to their environment, or, rather, to the constraints imposed by their environment. We are also adapting by changing our way of life, by developing new technology, by developing a better understanding of nature ...


1

Here is how Ronald Aronson describes what is going on in Albert Camus's The Fall: This sense of moral complexity is most eloquent in his short novel The Fall, whose single character, Clamence, has been variously identified as everyman, a Camus-character, and a Sartre-character. He was all of these. Clamence is clearly evil, guilty of standing by as a ...


0

I generally take it as an axiom that people invariably do what they believe is correct. Even when an act appears evil to others, even when an act appears evil to the doer after the fact, in the moment of action the person is doing the act because it strikes him — on some criteria — as the best action to take at that moment. No one lies for the sake of lying, ...


0

In Hegel's Science of Logic Evil is equated with extreme selfishness, so, if the terms are interchangeable, doing something for a very selfish aim, in the knowledge that that constitutes evilness, is the same is doing something for the sake of evil. This depends on the point that Evil is not anything other than extreme selfishness, in the standard context ...


0

I think this is totally wrong as an intuition, that it is in fact not intuitive but inculcated, and that it expresses a bias toward an overly mature system of morality. There is a basic principle of not wishing to be contained by any ruleset. People, men especially, are not as useful to their communities if they are predictable by outsiders. It is the ...


0

Jean-Philippe Deranty provides a survey of aesthetic perspectives of six existentialists: Albert Camus, Simone de Beauvoir, Gabriel Marcel, Maurice Merleau-Ponty and Jean-Paul Sartre. This ontological aspect of existentialism ties it to aesthetic considerations. Existentialist thinkers believe that, under certain conditions, freedom grants the human being ...


1

Hard Objective View: Metaphysical presupposition (MP): physicalism. Truth 1: animals are not the same, not even humans are entirely same. Even if they have some similarities. Truth 1 implies e.g.: There do not actually (as per MP) exist universal rights, laws that sort of thing. Since animals are indifferent even inside a species, then their rights ...


0

Your question reminds me of Sartre Given the fundamental division of the human situation into facticity and transcendence, bad faith or inauthenticity can assume two principal forms: one that denies the freedom or transcendence component (“I can't do anything about it”) and the other that ignores the factical dimension of every situation (“I can ...


1

A lie is a lie, morally, socially, or otherwise. Even the less intelligent will find out that a lie is a lie. It just takes more time. Worse, the liar has somehow suggested that you can lie. We have a commitment to this and generations to cherish truthfulness and honesty irrespective of the consequences.


0

While this could be opinion-based, there are several extant philosophical frameworks that could give you some ways of thinking about this. For Socrates, the worst epistemic state possible is to think you know and not know. So Socrates would commend your willingness to admit your puzzlement. However, Socrates also put forward the injunction that one should ...


1

Briefly, no. According to Grotius an act is no more or less moral than another in the way a mother was no more or less pregnant with you or your sibling. "Moral deceit" - like a joke or fiction story - is simply a false statement which hurts no one. Why no moral relativism? This question is a non-sequitur. It assumes some scale of morality designed by ...


1

One place to look for arguments similar to the paradox of tolerance is "slippery slope" arguments. Douglas Walton offers four identifying characteristics of slippery slope arguments: One is a first step, an action or policy being considered. A second is a sequence in which this action leads to other actions. A third is a so-called gray zone or area of ...


0

What you describe, particularly the moments at the metro, must have been an emotionally burdensome situation I cannot easily imagine. It is not only very understandable that you asked someone for help, but seen from the other one's perspective, it might also be that he was glad you did not stay alone. My view is that there is nothing to feel bad about! I ...


0

If there is no room for failure, then ambition and guilt can make you want to escape the situation. I know that in the city where I work there are a lot of Asian students who are ambiguous too and get stuck in their study, have people at home with high expectations that with the other isolating factors can lead to suicide. If you are looking for ...


0

In the original (and often misunderstood) understanding of natural rights, certain qualities were considered to be properties of human beings (in much the same way that mass and hardness are properties of a stone). The idea often gets tangled up in semantics — one of the 'properties' of human beings is 'property ownership', and the dual senses of the term ...


0

"Human Rights the way UN and other who promote them as laws define them" are a social construct, a mere convention of rules defined and enforced by a state (or in the case of the UN, the states which ratified the convention). Some people do consider them to follow from reason, some consider them to follow from divine revelation. I personally see both those ...


1

Ancient sources are relevant here. Aristotle's God In Aristotle's cosmology, God is a purely contemplative being. God does nothing but think, since thinking is the most perfect activity; and God thinks only about Godself since there is nothing more perfect to think about. Aristotle calls this a 'thinking of thinking' (noesis noeseos). God is the 'first ...


Top 50 recent answers are included