Exactly. Name calling, how mature. Furthermore, "son"? How do you know my gender?nameless wrote:Don't be a little prick, son..Et_tu_Brute wrote:Now that the nuisance has given up, ...
I've just given up on you!
Right versus Wrong
-
- Posts: 12
- Joined: December 29th, 2008, 2:02 am
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 13813
- Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
- Location: UK
nameless can speak for themself. There is a difference between fate and determinism. Fate is a superstitious sub-section of determinism.
Doesn't any discussion of ethics or morality turn on criteria? The Golden Rule is a criterion. Pleasure is another. Ends don't justify means is another.Ending suffering is another criterion. Freedom or justice is a clash of criteria. Harmony with what is inevitable is another. Do moral criteria come from God, from outwith humanity, or from human reason and experience?
If one can justify one's criteria one would be on a strong base, but criteria are basic, and are usually a matter of faith.
I may change my mind and feeling about what I take to be basically a matter of faith, and I think it's best that way, because faith that is held against new evidence is fanaticism which is usually irrational and can lead to death. A favourite criterion is buried in my statement, that is, does it favour life or does it favour death?
-
- Posts: 12
- Joined: December 29th, 2008, 2:02 am
The fact of the matter is, it is very difficult if not impossible to accurately label the choices and actions of others. If you're lucky, you barely know yourself well enough to decide why you made the choices you did, and hopefully why you will continue to make choices that benefit others' well being. After all, it is useless to be able to say what decisions you made were "right" if you don't use that knowledge to help you make good choices in the future.
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 13813
- Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
- Location: UK
Et Tu Brute wrote:
This illustrates how empathy is not enough. Perhaps the parents-to-be are Catholics who would be extremely unhappy with the prospect of abortion. In helping the parents-to-be to make a good choice they should understand the full range of choices. This can only happen if the parents-to-be have received an education that allows them to consider evidence and ideas in a rational way. If morality has been imposed on the parents-to-be by an authoritarian religion the ethics of which are based on dogma, and the parents-to-be are unable to make a free decision based on both sympathy for others concerned, including the foetus, then they may make a bad choice because not a rational choice.To use abortion as an example: is it good to allow life to be given the chance to succeed? Most people would say yes. However, what if the family is much too poor to support another child, let alone the cost there is in having the child birthed? If letting that one kid live in time kills that kid's entire family, as well as himself/herself, is it "good"? I would say no, it's beneficial for the well being of the family as well as the child that it not be born.
Rationality and sympathy the two roots of morality. These are best fostered by liberal education, other things such as secure parenting, adequate food and shelter and freedom from pain being equal.
-
- Posts: 12
- Joined: December 29th, 2008, 2:02 am
However, these things are never equal. There will never be a occurrence when the exact same thing happens to different people are different times. There are too many variables to take into effect (economy, wealth, the morality of those people by which they base their choices, etc.).Belinda wrote: Rationality and sympathy the two roots of morality. These are best fostered by liberal education, other things such as secure parenting, adequate food and shelter and freedom from pain being equal.
This is exactly why there cannot be a standard for deciding which choice to make when the circumstances will never repeat themselves. There will need to be an exception for every single situation, making these rules essentially useless.
It is impossible to be able to completely understand the thought and decision-making processes of another individual. People need to stop spreading their attention too thin and worry about their own actions.
-
- Posts: 3
- Joined: December 29th, 2008, 12:49 am
Since each situation is different and each individuals perspective on the situation is different, all variables must be considered before deeming it right or wrong. And whether it be right for the greater good, the town, or just yourself, the pros and cons should me weighed before a decision is reached. Laws shouldn't be adamant, they should be flexible to deal with complex scenarios that requires adaptions.
Empathy is the reason in previous wars each side has attempted to demonize the enemy, so they seem less human, and so our soldiers are not able to empathize their plight. How can you kill a man if you know that he has a family back home? If empathy existed in soldiers minds during a battle, they could not help but imagine that it was their family losing him, and ruthlessly decisive choices in battle would be impossible.
Belinda does have a point that rationality and logic serve important roles in making the right choice. Adam and Eve could eat from any tree in the Garden of Eden, but of course Eve went for the tree of knowledge, where she could know good from evil, right from wrong. Was she right to eat of the tree? Would we exist in blissful ignorance were it not for the cunning snake? Or would've that ignorance allowed us to commit ghastly atrocities without a complaint from our conscience? Did we lose innocence or gain empathy?
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023