A Puzzle.

@Pessimist,

All social animals have this little evolutionary quirk, where if someone threatens the order of things they are banished or killed.

@Pessimist,

To be true to his own ideals, and therefore to himself.

Because prison food tastes horrible, I guess.

other than that, my only guess would be that it's out of respect for our parents who wanted us to succeed in life as honestly as possible.
Freud may have been on to something here I think.

@Pessimist,

Pessimist wrote:

If a man does not benefit from being moral and ethical, why should he be moral or ethical?

If a man has more benefit being violent and ruthless why shouldn't he act in that way?

There is no reason why one should. It is a free choice.

@Pessimist,

To allow freedom amongst all and therefore freedom for himself?
To do unto others as he would have done unto him?
Is it not a given that the pen is mightier than the sword?

Dan.

@Pessimist,

Pessimist wrote:

If a man does not benefit from being moral and ethical, why should he be moral or ethical?

Who says a man doesn't benefit from being moral and ethical? One would probably have to practice moral and ethics to know the benefits of such.

@Pessimist,

Say guys, I think that the problem is that the benefit should contain a certain "goal" for some people to be called a benefit. Once the realisation that "goals" are subjective sinks in that idea evaporates. The angle you are choosing: to argue a different kind of goal (although I love Kant de budding and I appreciate the difference between duty and "goals" it is often not understood because of the "goal" mindedness makes it very hard to discern between the two. When freedom of choice is understood first from there the difference between duty and goal can be argued.

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead wrote:

All social animals have this little evolutionary quirk, where if someone threatens the order of things they are banished or killed.

What specific order of things are you discussing about?

@Aristoddler,

Aristoddler wrote:

To be true to his own ideals, and therefore to himself.

Because prison food tastes horrible, I guess.

other than that, my only guess would be that it's out of respect for our parents who wanted us to succeed in life as honestly as possible.
Freud may have been on to something here I think.

Quote:

Because prison food tastes horrible, I guess.

Fear.

Quote:

other than that, my only guess would be that it's out of respect for our parents who wanted us to succeed in life as honestly as possible.
Freud may have been on to something here I think.

I find this hard to believe.

Quote:

Arjen

There is no reason why one should. It is a free choice.

My thoughts exactly.

[QUOTE]
De Budding

To allow freedom amongst all and therefore freedom for himself?
To do unto others as he would have done unto him?
Is it not a given that the pen is mightier than the sword?

[/QUOTE]

Quote:

To allow freedom amongst all and therefore freedom for himself?

Freedom throughout history has never encompassed everyone or all therefore a statement like this doesn't make much sense to me.

Quote:

To do unto others as he would have done unto him?

Yet there exists no guarantee and often enough people will do unto others as they themselves want to be treated as only to achieve a sharp razor knife in their back.

Quote:

Is it not a given that the pen is mightier than the sword?

In a controlled enviroment the pen can indeed be mightier than the sword but once the pen is place in a uncontrolled enviroment it is cut in half.

@Pessimist,

How do you think one can act so that freedom can be preserved Pessimist?

@Arjen,

Arjen wrote:

How do you think one can act so that freedom can be preserved Pessimist?

Chaos and aimless relativity.

( Where anything goes.)

Those are the things I hold in great regard as they are constants of the universe.

@Pessimist,

Pessimist wrote:

Chaos and aimless relativity.

( Where anything goes.)

Why would that be a solution then? (<-- argumentation is a *****)

@Justin,

Justin wrote:

Who says a man doesn't benefit from being moral and ethical? One would probably have to practice moral and ethics to know the benefits of such.

Are you saying that all people who follow or believe in morality live happy fulfilling lives absolutely?

Are you denying the possibility that such confining abstracts can bring harm to some individuals?

Quote:

One would probably have to practice moral and ethics to know the benefits of such.

I'm sure there are plenty of outcasts who used to be moral.

Arjen wrote:

Why would that be a solution then? (<-- argumentation is a *****)

In such a enviroment of chaos and aimless relativity there are no confines or limits in that all people can decide the outcome of their own fates.

Once you build confines and limitations hypocrisy or corruption is only inevitable.

@Pessimist,

Pessimist wrote:

Are you saying that all people who follows or believes in morality live happy fulfilling lives absolutely?

Did I say that?

Pessimist wrote:

Are you denying the possibility that such confining abstracts can bring harm to some individuals?

You've chosen a pessimistic way of looking at things. I'm an optimist therefore we think differently. Likewise this is more of an optimistic forum and approach to Philosophy and discussion of such.

Seriously, I feel like we are light years apart in our thinking. There's no argument to be had.

@Arjen,

Pessimist wrote:

In such a enviroment there are no confines or limits in that all people can decide the outcome of their own fates.

Once you build confines and limitations hypocrisy or corruption is only inevitable.

Try looking at it from a different angle. There is a theory which is categorised under "Moral Skepticism" by Makey. The theory is that ethical claims cannot be proven because there is no such thing as right and wrong, or at least that humans do not have such a view on the matter to make such claims.

This seems supported by the fact that all humans are subjective and that subjective values ("goals") alway seem to include personal gain in comparrison to others. Immanuel Kant calls this the hypothetical imperative (the "goal" being "good" is hypothetical because it cannot be proven). Kant also points towards his categorical imperative because he argues that "good" is not the act in itself, but the intention with which the action was undertaken. If the intention is to act only in such a way that one can wish it would become a universal law (be treated in the same way) it is an action which holds no "evil" intent. In that sense it does not judge and has no subjective "goals" in it. The acts in itself are not decided upon so no "rulebase" is present which seems to confirm the moral skepticism.

Well, I for one think moral skepticism holds a lot of truth, but in order to live with others perhaps Kant's categorical imperative could offer us something. At least it leaves all acts open and therefore excludes nothing, but it does ask of anyone to evaluate ones own intentions. If you would like to debate Kant there is a whole subforum just for him.

Smile

@Arjen,

Our minds are not blank slates. We're wired in a certain way in which we are affected viscerally and autonomically by witnessing violence, pain, obvious injustice, etc. While we can surmise some evolutionary advantage to helping rather than harming others, we know from sociological research that most humans, irrespective of religious tradition or nationality, react similarly in similar scenarios in which they are presented with a moral choice. The moral decision is part of us -- but different philosophies become developed to justify that decision.

Arjen wrote:

There is no reason why one should. It is a free choice.

Wouldn't Kant differ from this? The categorical imperative certainly emphasizes the imperative, not freedom of choice.

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

Our minds are not blank slates. We're wired in a certain way in which we are affected viscerally and autonomically by witnessing violence, pain, obvious injustice, etc. While we can surmise some evolutionary advantage to helping rather than harming others, we know from sociological research that most humans, irrespective of religious tradition or nationality, react similarly in similar scenarios in which they are presented with a moral choice. The moral decision is part of us -- but different philosophies become developed to justify that decision.

Wouldn't Kant differ from this? The categorical imperative certainly emphasizes the imperative, not freedom of choice.

An emparative signals the necessity, it does not dictate in the sense you mean. It does, however dictate how an action is exectued for one acting under such an imperative. Do you see the difference?

@Pessimist,

Yes, I meant that there is a moral imperative. Clearly one can freely choose to violate that moral imperative.

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

Yes, I meant that there is a moral imperative. Clearly one can freely choose to violate that moral imperative.

That was the entire point: one can freely choose how to act. The difference consists in the choice between duty or goal. An imperitive follows that choice.

@Arjen,

Arjen wrote:

That was the entire point: one can freely choose how to act. The difference consists in the choice between duty or goal. An imperitive follows that choice.

But Kant's Groundings were not an exposition of free choice. It was an exposition of ought. What ought we to do? Can ought be rationally derived? Clearly he judged moral behavior to correspond to his deontologic ought -- so while someone CAN behave in whatever way they choose, they OUGHT to behave in a very specific way.

Philosophy Forum

A Puzzle.

Quick Links

My Account

able2know