Why aren't people behaving more immorally than they are behaving? — Bitter Crank
Is that what you do? :lol:Because of the fear of getting caught and punished. — CuddlyHedgehog
Yes, but Plato doesn't talk about that relatively simple situation. Plato frames it through Thrasymachus that only you will behave immorally, and you will get away with it, nobody will ever know or find out. The question is then posed if, in that case, you should do it?Without reading Plato's Republic, one can pretty well predict the consequences of many or most people behaving immorally and getting away with it. — Bitter Crank
If the act does not harm or affect anyone, and no one knows that it has been committed, and will never find out, how harmful can it be? If it isn't harmful, can it be immoral? — Bitter Crank
But I don't think the legal system exhausts the scope of morality. — darthbarracuda
you will get away with it, nobody will ever know or find out — Agustino
Imagine you can live the rest of your life immorally and get away with it, societal or otherwise.
Would you still choose to be moral, why or why not? — Ruchi
"Why aren't people behaving more immorally than they are behaving?"
Imagine you can live the rest of your life immorally and get away with it, societal or otherwise.
Would you still choose to be moral, why or why not? — Ruchi
Please go and read Plato's Republic. He asks exactly this question and answers it, I think, conclusively. — Agustino
Yes, but I am asking you why this is the case. Why can't it be answered conclusively? What does answering it conclusively even mean to you?Because it's not the kind of thing that can be answered conclusively. That would be a category error. It only makes sense in terms of, "What's your opinion?". — Sapientia
Yes, but I am asking you why this is the case. — Agustino
Why can't it be answered conclusively? What does answering it conclusively even mean to you? — Agustino
Which others?Because this case is like the others. — Sapientia
So the matter being put to rest is what you mean by answering it conclusively. That is the standard by which we judge if something is answered conclusively. Are you sure about that? The Big Bang is, by that criterion, not a conclusive answer. Global warming is also not a conclusive answer - 1% of scientists disagree.It would mean that the matter could be put to rest. — Sapientia
Which others? — Agustino
So the matter being put to rest is what you mean by answering it conclusively. That is the standard by which we judge if something is answered conclusively. Are you sure about that? The Big Bang is, by that criterion, not a conclusive answer. Global warming is also not a conclusive answer - 1% of scientists disagree. — Agustino
It is the nature of our human discourse for matters never to be put to rest. We will always discuss and keep on re-discussing and going through the motions with everything. The dialectic does not happen once, and after that nobody talks about it anymore. Why not? Because the answer can only be conveyed to you if you yourself go through the motions. It cannot be conveyed merely verbally. But this isn't to say that the answer is a matter of opinion. — Agustino
I propose another definition for matters being put to rest. Matters are put to rest when, after going through the motions of the argument, there are no remaining unanswered strands that create doubts and uncertainty in the mind. — Agustino
really, an egotist. Worse than a parliamentarian in my opinion. — Count Radetzky von Radetz
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.