|
Science Forum Index » Philosophy - Meta Forum » Complicated Justification Of Pre-Existing Prejudices
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| Immortalist |
 Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 3:17 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
What makes an action right or wrong? What do we mean when we say that
someone ought or ought not to do something? How should we live? How
should we treat other people? ...If we cannot say why such things as
torture, murder, cruelty, slavery, rape, and theft are wrong, what
justification can we have for preventing them? Is morality simply a
matter of prejudice or can we give good reasons for our moral
beliefs?...
....Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) pointed out in Beyond Good and
Evil,
...most moral philosophers end up justifying
'a desire of the heart that has been filtered
and made abstract'...
...In other words, these philosophers give
complicated analyses which appear to involve
impersonal logical reasoning but which always
end up by demonstrating that their pre-existing
prejudices were correct...
Nevertheless moral philosophy can provide insights when dealing with
real moral issues: it can clarify the implications of certain very
general beliefs about morality, and show how these beliefs can
consistently be put into practice.
PHILOSOPHY: THE BASICS
Nigel Warburton
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0415146941/ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| curmudgeon |
| Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 3:34 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Some lawyers argue that BIGOTRY is a form of mental illness.
"There are no enemies in science just anomalies" |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Immortalist |
| Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:04 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mar 26, 1:34 pm, "curmudgeon" <briticanlan...@bresnan.net> wrote:
Quote: Some lawyers argue that BIGOTRY is a form of mental illness.
"There are no enemies in science just anomalies"
Then your arguing that "BIGOTRY" is a genetic predisposition that
needs to be curtailed by cultural learning or something a peaceful ape
just learns and needs to un-learn?
Some social scientists & evolutionists believe it is inborn and like a
dog that must be leashed.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/msg/08aa8c468adf2977 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| skycloudnz |
| Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:41 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Moral philosophy can provide a set of references for decisions. Kant's
categorical imperative could be seen in this light rather than set of
absolutes. Like logic is to the rational argument the categorical
imperative can be used to measure the consistancy and rationality of
the moral decision. In life there are often more than one set of
conditions affecting the moral decision. So the moral absolute like
scientific laws is confronted with other issues that would lead to
different decisions. So as we use fuzzy logic in applying science
morality is affected by this conflict unless we use a resultant type
decision as in vectors. Cause and effect can be used in the
existential mode. The decision as to whether we use absolutes or look
to effects is an individual's choice as the rational proof for either
is not absolutely at hand. So alas we must make decisions based upon
all the tools at our disposal. Moral absolutes, cause and effects
relationships, interaction between ideas and our own wishes. The
latter makes us humans and not robots to absolutes.
Regards Sky |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Mike |
| Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 1:23 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mar 26, 1:41�pm, "skycloudnz" <john...@gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: Moral philosophy can provide a set of references for decisions. Kant's
categorical imperative could be seen in this light rather than set of
absolutes. Like logic is to the rational argument the categorical
imperative can be used to measure the consistancy and rationality of
the moral decision. In life there are often more than one set of
conditions affecting the moral decision. So the moral absolute like
scientific laws is confronted with other issues that would lead to
different decisions. So as we use fuzzy logic in applying science
morality is affected by this conflict unless we use a resultant type
decision as in vectors. Cause and effect can be used in the
existential mode. The decision as to whether we use absolutes or look
to effects is an individual's choice as the rational proof for either
is not absolutely at hand. So alas we must make decisions based upon
all the tools at our disposal. Moral absolutes, cause and effects
relationships, interaction between ideas and our own wishes. The
latter makes us humans and not robots to absolutes.
Logic is used to determine consistency as well as rationality.
Although I would agree that the categorical imperative is a useful
reference for an individual it would not necessarily be the same for
another individual who has different ideas and wishes. Some situations
are unique and our knowledge is limited so we can only try to make the
best decisions possible imperfect as they may be (that's life). A
moral decision is one that chooses ideas rather than wishes, a major
difference between humans and animals although we seem to share the
cause and effect of stimulus and response. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
