15
For what it's worth: there's actually some empirical research around the question of which sorts of aid and intervention actually provide long-term solutions versus prolonging indigence/poverty/etc.
In particular some experimenters have tried giving homeless people moderately-sized amounts of cash (about $5,000 USD). The results compare very favorably to ...
13
I cannot answer for all ethical theories, but for Kant, the answer is most definitely yes.
Specifically in the Metaphysical Principles of Virtue or Doctrine of Virtue (Both are names for the Tugendlehre), Kant identifies both suicide and lying as wrong not because of anything they do directly to others but as failings in one's moral duty to oneself.
...
7
ad 1) On the base of human rights there is no justification for the suffering of people. In addition, history has shown that the promise of a better future can be a dangerous delusion and invites to misuse.
ad 2) We cannot be certain: History has shown that the ideal Marxist state is a theoretical fiction.
6
Two key articles to read to understand care ethics:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/care-eth/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-ethics/
Basic answer: feminist care ethics is a project building on the work of Carol Gilligan and Nel Noddings. Gilligan was critical of Kohlberg's stages of moral development. Lawrence Kohlberg came up with six stages of moral ...
5
You mention justice as the reason to give someone a treatment that needs it, but one must also consider the virtue of prudence, as it is not always possible to make these decisions in a vacuum. Given the reality of finite resources (money, time, medical professionals), only so many treatments are available at a time, so there has to be a system for deciding ...
5
We shouldn't put peer reviewed studies on a pedestal. The replication crisis unfolding in biomedical research, neuroscience, psychology, and other fields is largely about researchers trying to game the peer review system. At the same time, researchers in physics, biology, and social science frequently post working drafts on preprint sites, such as http://...
4
This is a very amusing question, and I like the considerations you articulate.
To place it in a less solitary context, you are asking about moral standards that are not "utilitarian" or "consequentialist." In other words, approaches to morality that are not based on harm to others or the consequences of actions.These are sometimes called "deontic."
So ...
4
The Kantian criterion of ethical is whether one would wish such behavior to become generally practiced (there are delicate differences between "wish" and "will", which I leave out).
"There is ... only a single categorical imperative and it is this: Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."
...
3
Several off-the-cuff answers come to mind. The first is a behavioral test. Is a "philosopher" today readily distinguished from other people by observation in public settings? Probably not. Certainly not to the extent of a Diogenes.
Further testimony to the contrary: Though I can't recall the exact quote, Hume famously claimed that the skeptical inquires of ...
3
How does higher mathematics or theoretical physics effect the personal lives of those who study those topics? Studying such fields contributes to the overall advancement of humanity. The students, as members of humanity themselves, are effected, even if infinitesimally, by the overall advancement of human knowledge.
The same applies to philosophy: ...
3
The current trends in mainstream academic philosophy in the English-language portion of the world are definitely in the direction of the more quantitative, mathematical, analytic, scientific and experimental. So if this does not interest you, your options are to leave the mainstream, leave academia, leave the English-speaking world, or change the trends.
...
3
I'm not convinced that hearing jokes all the time would make them not funny. As long as they are original there does not need to be a problem. There's also no reason to assume we'd run out of original jokes.
But if we'd assume that hearing jokes all the time implied that they wouldn't be funny anymore, then yes, the categorical imperative in that ...
3
A better example, which is often discussed in the ethical literature, can be found in the novel Huck Finn. Huck is befriended by a runaway slave named Jim. Huck believes that it is wrong for Jim to run away and wrong for him to help Jim. But, he decides to do the "wrong" thing and help Jim escape to the free northern states anyway. The question then is: Is ...
3
You asked:
However, is there ever a case where a person can act unethically towards themselves?
I think the best existing moral theory, created by Ayn Rand, would say yes:
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/selfishness.html.
You ought to do what is in your rational self interest. Some people disagree with this idea but I am not aware of any objection ...
3
Great question and for me, it points up one of the major confusions evidenced by the typical conservationist assertion that somehow, nature as we observe it in the recent centuries is in some type of 'balance', that is, before human intercession interrupts this 'natural' ecological normalcy. Species have come and gone in their multi-thousands upon thousands ...
3
As American patent law sees it, you still have the right to use your idea independent of them. It is 'prior art' and they cannot monopolize it. But you have no right to any part of their success. They are the ones who have made the investment in your idea.
You already had the opportunity to take your idea to someone else who would make that investment in ...
3
In general, what you're talking about probably falls best under Game Theory Ethics. This is the application of game theory to morality. (Game theory is the attempt to bring systematic analysis to bear on choice-making situations where the impact of the choices of one decision-maker or "agent" is affected or altered by the choices of the other agent or ...
3
By a Lockean notion of the social contract, you have tacitly agreed to obey laws that support that contract by remaining in your society and accepting the protection of its principal players and its institutions. Conservatives are not really being hyperbolic when they claim people have died so you can have your nationality.
If you want out of that contract,...
3
▻ THE COMPLEXITY OF MORALITY : MORAL OBLIGATION TO OBEY THE LAW DOES NOT ENTAIL A MORAL NECESSITY TO OBEY THE LAW
One can have a moral obligation to obey the law yet more important countervailing moral obligations may require one not to obey the law. Consider the parallel with a promise : I am under a moral obligation to return a borrowed book but that ...
3
Huemer's views belong to what is called moral intuitionism, we have moral intuitions that track objective values, contra Mackie's argument from queerness that such intuitions would be unprecedented, and our having them an unmotivated leap. Huemer's argument from history is a response to what is called evolutionary debunking arguments against moral realism, ...
3
There are three answers, so normally I would refrain from writing my own. However, I note with some displeasure that none of those answers actually answer OP's question as asked:
How would different ethical frameworks draw boundaries on when it is ethical to criticize an entity?
So, let's quickly run through some of the more popular options.
...
2
I'm not an expert, so I can't say if any professional philosophers have argued for or against this view, but granting every person even tangentially involved equal value seems to result in a tautology. Real-world interactions, such as the manufacture and sale of a ring, involve enormously complex social dynamics.
If we place equal blame on the person who ...
2
Example
An example I am aware of is the Torah Codes, in which the birth and death dates of important Rabbis are supposedly encoded close to their names in the Bible. Some very intelligent researchers found extraordinarily strong evidence using recognised statistical techniques, and their results were published in a secular peer-reviewed journal. It had many ...
2
First, I should warn that I'm not a vegetarian nor do I play one on TV. My wife is one however, and there are many different reasons people make this choice: ranging from not liking the taste of meat, health reasons, moral concerns (which could include religious reasons) about animal consumption or the treatment of animals who are later consumed, religious ...
2
So it all comes down to Tripitaka's intentions. Did he make friends with the intention to help the monkey tame his mind?
The KALAMA Sutta is a good Sutta to begin a discussion in morals. In this Sutta Buddha asks you to judge whether something is moral by discerning whether it is not only good for yourself but for others as well. The monkey represents ...
2
The answer to both questions is yes. First there are no absolutes in this world. Moral principles are relative and can vary from time, place, and circumstances. Moral principles are there to guide you when you are beginning on the path of dharma, or for those who cannot follow dharma. Moral principles are like a fence around a young tree; necessary when it ...
2
As I stated above in the comments, I do think the amount has bearing.
Why? Simply put, because the description of what happens is at least as I take it as follows:
Case in Question
The asker ordered something on Amazon
The thing originally sent by Amazon to the asker was broken.
The asker requested that Amazon fix this
Amazon's attempts to fix this were ...
2
I have seen a valid argument for "belonging," but it was explicitly opposed to the concept of being a thing which was actually "achievable."
The pattern worked like this. If we start from the presumption that we are imperfect, and that we must interpret any ethics using our imperfect self, then it is potentially possible to misinterpret any perfect ethical ...
2
In Kant's ethics, the primary concern is whether an agent's actions accord with reason (understood in a universal sense). Thus, he is not generally concerned with the outcomes of our actions, and he saw certain acts as right or wrong in themselves, regardless of results. For him, actions are always wrong if they cause harm to rational beings. But Kant did ...
2
My first answer would be a rather general claim: If you are studying anything and it doesn't affect your life, you're doing it wrong.
Philosophers are known for asking questions that do not have easy answers. In fact, I have seen many suggest that it is not the answers in Philosophy that matter, but the questions themselves.
We make assumptions every day,...
Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible
