Someone does not have to know that their life is worth living in comparison to another, to live well. Some people live well without engaging a process of "examination". For them, examining their life is not required to live well, and may only serve as a pointless (or even damaging) distraction.
Examining things is no doubt the basis of philosophy. Philosophy is a critical project. The problem is that ethical action is not. It's it's own state of existence, which may be present without the critical examinations of philosophy. Sometimes people just do good and know what is good. — TheWillowOfDarkness
It is for the person, and that's the sense that counts. A "third party" conclusion that a life is meaningful isn't relevant to whether my life is worth living to me. And for it to be worth living to me, I must examine my life. Thus the unexamined life can never be worth living.
You are making a category error, as if the meaning of one's existence is empirical, when it is existential. Dasein ist je meines - existence is always my existence. — Landru Guide Us
I don't find that to be an instance of abetting a robbery. Nor do I find giving a thief my own money to be something morally wrong. Let me give a better example:So if a robber holds a gun to your head and you give him the money, you're committing the immoral act of abetting a robbery? Oh the absurdity of imposing morality on people in extremis. — Landru Guide Us
No, probably I wouldn't have sufficient courage. But that is said to my shame, not as a way to justify that the action is somehow not immoral just because I do it, and because I was forced to do it.Like Ben Carson you would have rushed the Wehrmach and let them torture you to death before you would do anything immoral in a concentration camp. Right. — Landru Guide Us
Why do you think that in the face of great suffering people cannot act morally? You think someone who, in self-sacrificing fashion, gives up his food so that a starving child may have it in a place like Auschwitz, you think that person is morally equivalent to one who kills a child so that he may take his food and survive?My principle: There is no moral way to act when you are beaten, tortured, threatened with death. There are no moral choices in that situation. Just suffering. Now some courageous people act courageously even in extreme situations. We should acknowledge that. But that has nothing to do with morality. — Landru Guide Us
Nope, you're just confusing two separate things: that life is worth living and knowledge or awareness that life is worth living. You therefore fail to account for those cases in which life is worth living despite lacking that knowledge or awareness. — Sapientia
However, in real life, I most probably will not refuse to say, and will tell the robber where my sister is. Why? Because I am too weak to uphold my moral values. But that doesn't mean that I shouldn't uphold them. — Agustino
Nope, you're just confusing two separate things: that life is worth living and knowledge or awareness that life is worth living. You therefore fail to account for those cases in which life is worth living despite lacking that knowledge or awareness.
If, for you, life is only worth living with that knowledge or awareness, then, that is fine. But, again, this is reflective of your judgement, rather than a fact about life. — Sapientia
I don't find that to be an instance of abetting a robbery. Nor do I find giving a thief my own money to be something morally wrong. Let me give a better example: — Agustino
Why do you think that in the face of great suffering people cannot act morally? You think someone who, in self-sacrificing fashion, gives up his food so that a starving child may have it in a place like Auschwitz, you think that person is morally equivalent to one who kills a child so that he may take his food and survive? — Agustino
Don't avoid answering the important part :) I didn't special plead to avoid your point, I actually tackled it by means of another example, which I would agree with. — Agustino
These sort of absurd contradictions is sufficient evidence that your moral claims have no force. — Landru Guide Us
To moralize that, particularly from a false claim that the judge of morality is stronger than those weak people, is not only obscene, but probably immoral in itself. It's blaming the victims. — Landru Guide Us
It's not a weakness. It's who we are. — Landru Guide Us
But they aren't more moral since the alternative isn't immoral. — Landru Guide Us
Read the ending of 1984. It illuminates the limits of morality in the face of power. — Landru Guide Us
I disagree that goodness has to be in my self-interest to be goodness. I identify many things which aren't in my self interest, which are in fact damaging to my self-interest, as good. So your theory seems to me to be, prima facie, false.doing what's in one's best interest, which, arguably, means that you should tell the robber where your sister is. — Sapientia
It would be better to identify what the correct moral values are if that is the case.Wouldn't it be better in that case, at least from a consequentialist viewpoint, to take actions contrary to those moral values? — Sapientia
The judge of morality doesn't have to be stronger than those weak people. He can be just as weak as them, and yet identify that it would be better if he was stronger. — Agustino
To me, morality and goodness are intrinsically linked. What is good, in a general sense, is moral. What is good for me, may or may not be moral — Agustino
Hard to see how this claim would survive even cursory scrutiny, and the examples already given seem to do that. But in any case it is yours to defend. You certainly haven't convinced me that this vague claim provides any useful moral guidance or doesn't lead to absurdities. — Landru Guide Us
I'm not confusing them at all, Sapientia. I'm distinguishing them for the reasons stated. You haven't responded to that but I'll give you one more chance:
Whether a life is worth living is not empirical. It always means is my life worth living to me. Thus it is an existential question, which can only be determined by me examining my life. Thus if my life is not examined by me, it is not worth living. — Landru Guide Us
Personally I feel very strongly that one of those people is morally superior to the other - one was willing to sacrifice himself to protect others, while the other was willing to sacrifice others to protect himself. — Agustino
I disagree that goodness has to be in my self-interest to be goodness. — Agustino
I identify many things which aren't in my self interest, which are in fact damaging to my self-interest, as good. — Agustino
So your theory seems to me to be, prima facie, false. — Agustino
It would be better to identify what the correct moral values are if that is the case. — Agustino
Indeed. Which is what makes your argument that the worthy life necessary involves self-examination so egregious. Your "third person" pontifications about how only examined lives are worth living don't define the life of anyone. They may have an "unexamined" life in which they are both comfortable and good. Some people don't need the critical reflection of philosophy to have a life which is worth living for them. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Well, you're confusing the relationship between them, at least. There is no logical dependency of one on the other. (Unless your argument is an argument by definition, in which case, I reject your definition). And I have responded. It's up to you whether or not you wilfully ignore it. In short: nope. Your assertion 'P' doesn't warrant any more than a dismissal or an assertion '~P'. Or are you trying to shift the burden of proof? But additionally, as others have also noted, there are counterexamples to your claim, and your position fails to acknowledge them. That is good enough reason to reject it. — Sapientia
Is morality anything more than being good, with being good defined in a manner which doesn't necessarily include self-interest? — Agustino
The relationship between them is the difference between the ontic and the ontological. — Landru Guide Us
Whether that's logical or not hardly matters. — Landru Guide Us
My position would be that logic arises out of the difference. — Landru Guide Us
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.