It's technically raising the matter of relative morality, but ascribing it to an imagined subset. So, on topic but with a white nationalist sorta subtext vibe. If you are looking for honest impressions of the text presented.Hopefully I don’t sound like I am going off topic but take the example of mob psychology and how a large group of people can encourage bad behavior in individual or encourage to behave differently. — SteveMinjares
1. Is it Morally wrong to destroy a beautiful painting?
2. What if no one would have ever seen it?
3. What if you painted it? — Cheshire
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/540198 (re: moral facts: suffering sapients)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/572299 (re: consequences for future suffering) — 180 Proof
how we might prevent increasing and/or reducing gratuitious suffering of ourselves by helping others do the same. — 180 Proof
as an ineliminable fact as S & K conceive — 180 Proof
and completely changing the view of my life or at least understanding that is completely reasonable suffer or the act of suffering.The anxiety is intense when the person is most original — Kierkegaard.
Really? I regularly pay for food for some reason. Hopefully, I can learn to transcend that practice. Or at least pretend toGood question. To be honest, I would not pay anything to “not suffer”... — javi2541997
You would ignore that consuming food is a response to hunger in order to maintain some position held dear.Food is so necessary to our lives that we have to pay some money to get the average calories per day and then have the body ready. — javi2541997
How much not to hit you with a hammer? I'd clear my checking if the fellow looked angry enough. Eliminating the ability to suffer is a different, but perhaps confusable matter.But, there are some aspects which makes us being totally humans: uncertainty, sadness, pain, weeping, etc...
I would never pay for quitting those emotions. The opposite is becoming a robot or just a program. — javi2541997
I think we are discussing similar words in different contexts.I understand it is quite miserable when we are living an experience like these emotions are meant to but thanks to this, philosophy and other knowledge development is when start to flourish — javi2541997
You would ignore that consuming food is a response to hunger in order to maintain some position held dear. — Cheshire
How much not to hit you with a hammer? — Cheshire
I think we are discussing similar words in different contexts. — Cheshire
Thanks! It's always nice to find I'm at least wandering down a path others see as well. I do intend on at least reading over the lecture on the ethics. What little I've gleamed is he seems like a secular phenomenologist. I read a stack of paper produced by Hegel and could only tell you he wants to see what God sees in order to make sense of things to humans. I think Einstein's approach of accounting for what things look like from the subjective and then explaining it from the objective was the reconciliation phenomenology required. Thanks again for the references; I'll look forward to seeing what the developed form of my objection entails. — Cheshire
1. Is it Morally wrong to destroy a beautiful painting?
2. What if no one would have ever seen it?
3. What if you painted it? — Cheshire
It appears morality is probably closer to other types of information than we realize. Which means we are correct about a lot of it and mistaken about some of it and which is which isn't always obvious. I'm not looking to lay out a prescriptive framework. I think that is where talk about human suffering really applies. Instead I was hoping to isolate a common thread in all acts that could be seen as immoral. Or point to some fundamental element. — Cheshire
Wittgenstein, it seems, was misled by superficial differences in morality - he failed to consider that there might be an underlying principle that connects an apple's fall and the revolution of the planets. — TheMadFool
Wittgenstein's failing, if you ask me, was that, and this refers to the Tractatus, in ethics and aesthetics, he considered language to be suitable for designating empirical matters, but thought metaethical, metaaesthetic Good and Bad to be nonsense. So, you put the Good in view, music or falling in love, and then note its parts, features, the "states of affairs" then, he says, there is this residual that cannot be spoken: the Good of it. Weird, I grant you, this Good, but: it is no less sewn into the fabric of existence than empirical facts. It CAN be spoken, but speech (logic) is with all things qualitatively different from the actualities of the world (he gets this from Kierkegaard, whom he adored). — Constance
A group of 47,000 [individual] Quaking Aspen (Populus tremuloides) trees (nicknamed "Pando") in the Wasatch Mountains, Utah, United States, has been shown to be a single clone connected by the root system. — Wikipedia
We have to dig deeper to find the essence which Wittgenstein believes (mistakenly?) doesn't exist. — TheMadFool
Thoughtfully disagree, you can still harm anything you value, it's just permissible to harm your own things.if youre alone on an island there is no morality — hope
Yes, this is the innate understanding of morality and ethics. It's how the court knows you are sane.its nothing but fairness between people — hope
Yep. As far as I can tell participatory realism is the way to go.everything is subjective relative and objective simultaneously — hope
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.