I don't think that there's any one specific purpose that is given by "God or Nature" (to borrow Spinoza) to something/someone that it/they must do to be good. Sort of the opposite of that, kind of. We start out not knowing much of anything about what the purpose of anything is, because we start out completely ignorant of what specifically is a good state of affairs, just some criteria by which to judge what's good (which is the topic of the second part of the OP that I trimmed for length), and then from there we fallibly set out to figure out what good can be done by what means, and so discover what the purpose of anything is. — Pfhorrest
- Objectivism [...] includes both universalism :up: and transcendentalism :down:,
- Subjectivism [...] includes both phenomenalism :up: and relativism :down:,
- Fideism [...] includes both liberalism :up: and dogmatism :down:, and
- Skepticism [...] includes both criticism :up: and cynicism :down:) — Pfhorrest
If you accept dogmatism rather than criticism [the position that there is always a question as to which opinion, and whether or to what extent any opinion, is correct], then if your opinions should happen to be the wrong ones, you will never find out, because you never question them, and you will remain wrong forever. And if you accept relativism rather than universalism [the position that there is such a thing as a correct opinion, in a sense beyond mere subjective agreement], then if there is such a thing as the right opinion after all, you will never find it, because you never even attempt to answer what it might be, and you will remain wrong forever.
There might not be such a thing as a correct opinion, and if there is, we might not be able to find it. But if we're starting from such a place of complete ignorance that we're not even sure about that – where we don't know what there is to know, or how to know it, or if we can know it at all, or if there is even anything at all to be known – and we want to figure out what the correct opinions are in case such a thing should turn out to be possible, then the safest bet, pragmatically speaking, is to proceed under the assumption that there are such things, and that we can find them, and then try. Maybe ultimately in vain, but that's better than failing just because we never tried in the first place. — Pfhorrest
phenomenalism, as anti-transcendentalism, is entailed by criticism: if you are going to hold every opinion open to question, you have to consider only opinions that would make some experiential, phenomenal difference, where you could somehow tell if they were correct or incorrect — Pfhorrest
I plan to do further threads on those topics (the will and its relation to morality, and the methods of justice) as soon as this one wraps up. — Pfhorrest
I hold that there is a universally applicable morality — Pfhorrest
I cannot see that this would work, if my pleasure is to see you in pain and suffering. — Sir2u
So a person that enjoys the suffering of others can never be happy. — Sir2u
It would be immoral to try to force someone to enjoy things they did not and a waste of time trying to find those things. — Sir2u
Is the "we" a branch of government? Or any other coercive agent? — jgill
- Objectivism [...] includes both universalism :up: and transcendentalism :down:,
- Subjectivism [...] includes both phenomenalism :up: and relativism :down:,
- Fideism [...] includes both liberalism :up: and dogmatism :down:, and
- Skepticism [...] includes both criticism :up: and cynicism :down:) — Pfhorrest
My view is also very similar to the definition of good consequences, or utility, given by the traditional normative ethical model called utilitarianism, as promoted by philosophers such as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill; but I am not here promoting the consequentialism that underlies traditional utilitarianism. I agree with utilitarians about what good ends are, but I do not hold that those ends flatly justify any and all means; as explained already in my earlier thread on dissolving normative ethics, I hold means to be of equal importance to ends, and I will elaborate further on the topic of just means in a later thread. — Pfhorrest
but first need also a method of justice, that in turn hinging on the nature of the will and its relation to morality. — Pfhorrest
I plan to do further threads on those topics (the will and its relation to morality, and the methods of justice) as soon as this one wraps up. — Pfhorrest
Interesting. Thanks for sharing it. This is something new I just learned today :100: — javi2541997
I just quoted that bit from my older thread so that my use of those terms in the other quoted bits would make more sense.
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.