Sure. But not a moral effect, except as it changes your relation towards others. — Banno
If someone ponders privately some violent act, say against women, but does not commit the, then nothing of moral significance has occurred. But if your contemplations lead you to a misogynist attitude, then they have a moral component. — Banno
That isn't so. Your acts have an impact on others. — Banno
This is completely incoherent. — Garrett Travers
Your brain is all over the place. — Garrett Travers
Notice you say actions now, or, as I said, behavior?if you ponder something that promots an attitude that leads to immoral actions — Banno
if your contemplations lead you to a misogynist attitude, they have a moral component — Banno
Notice you say actions now, or, as I said, behavior? — Garrett Travers
Why do we do good? — TiredThinker
So, when you are alone morality isn't a factor? — Garrett Travers
other than to make ourselves feel good — TiredThinker
c) we want to do good thingsMirror neurons are one of the most important discoveries in the last decade of neuroscience. These are a variety of visuospatial neurons which indicate fundamentally about human social interaction. ... Apart from imitation, they are responsible for myriad of other sophisticated human behavior and thought processes. — https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › articles ›
Because it isn't something that's broadly accepted as the most reasonable position in philosophy. — Garrett Travers
For example, taking simply the utilitarian approach at ethics, smoking cigarretts increases your risk of cancer, thereby decreasing overall utility. This is an unethical behavior. — Garrett Travers
I don't see how this (or other forms of self-harm) is unethical behaviour, except in how it might effect others - e.g.,using health services that others might need, etc. — Tom Storm
"Since a value is that which on acts to gain and/or keep, and the amount of possible action is the duration of one's lifespan, it is a part of one's life that one invests in everything one values. The years, months, days or hours of thought, of interest, of action devoted to a value are the currency with which one pays for the enjoyment one receives from." — Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Concepts of Consciousness
No, you misunderstood, I said your assertion that morality ONLY applies to other people is not broadly accepted as even the most rudimentary of positions among moral philosophers. — Garrett Travers
YOU don't see how it is unethical because your concept of ethics is binary, either interpersonal, or not a domain of ethics. Do you see what I'm saying? — Garrett Travers
I don't see how this (or other forms of self-harm) is unethical behaviour, except in how it might effect others - e.g.,using health services that others might need, etc. — Tom Storm
He is channeling Ayn Rand, where "morality" is a personal to do list: — Paine
is "because good is what we ought do".
— Banno
To whom exactly we ought? — dimosthenis9
Maybe it is just your wording in here, but what I am attempting to say is (and it's a yardstick, not a theory) that what we call morality is the result of people interacting with other conscious creatures - this can be direct or indirect interactions. — Tom Storm
So your position is trinary? I should not say that 'me, myself and I' can't be in the domain of ethics - what I properly should say is that I have not yet heard convincing arguments for why it should be. I am not a utilitarian. It would be helpful if you to make the case for or provide citations for your argument. — Tom Storm
We're wired to be selfish (so says evolution and other sources) — Agent Smith
They need to reproduce (with John Agar)
They need to reproduce (with Morris Ankrum)
They need to reproduce (with Richard Basehart)
They need to reproduce (with Jackie Coogan)
They need to reproduce (with Sonny Tufts)
Yes, you ought do as you ought, to whomever you meet. — Banno
And I don't know what you mean on the citation thing. What do I need to cite for? — Garrett Travers
Especially if you have no problem saying that such ethical deliberations are possible between humans. That quite literally doesn't make sense — Garrett Travers
I've asked clearly for you to provide refences of philosophers who hold your position about the self and morality. Since you are the one who says all reasonable philosophers think this way it is only reasonable for us to see a reference or two. In my reading of James Taylor, John Rawls, Peter Singer, Martha Nussbaum and Iris Murdoch I have not encountered this. I am not saying it isn't there but please show us how it's an aspect of any inherent framework of morality. — Tom Storm
That you and some others may hold this position is perfectly fine by me. It just won't be part of my framework unless I hear a good argument for why it should be. — Tom Storm
Well several people here seem to agree with it so it isn't such a strange notion. Not making sense to you doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. — Tom Storm
An appeal to popularity isn't an argument. — Garrett Travers
What position? That ethics applies to more than just interpersonal relations? — Garrett Travers
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.