Señor works better for me, amigo. Gracias. — 180 Proof
"[T]he criterion problem" is only a problem for a (classical) 'justificationist' approach to epistemology. (SEP & wiki are your friends, TMF.) — 180 Proof
healthy or adaptable or rational for "moral" and the question self-evidently answers or negates itself. — 180 Proof
Spoon-feeding ain't fun, Fool.(SEP & wiki are your friends, TMF.) — 180 Proof
Try the philosophers I mentioned here as a start:I'm genuinely curious, what other kinds of "approach" to knowledge are there over and above, beyond, justificationism (I hope I got the word right)? — TheMadFool
Also, "rationality brought to bear on ethics" goes back at least as far as the Aristotleans, Epicureans & Stoics ... and Spinoza predates Kant et al by at least a century. Ethics, like the rest of philosophy, is a performative exercise (reflection, contemplation) and not a propositional discourse (theoretical explanation), so it's inherently interminable, perhaps occasionally converging (by processes of eliminating patent nonsense and falsehoods) but never converging upon settled-once-and-for-all-positions. We're Sisyphusean rodeo clowns striving, at best, for better questions, Fool, not scientists with lab results or self-help gurus pimping fortune cookie (perennial) answers. Why ethics continues to preoccupy so many philosophers? Same reason "health" still preoccupies physicians & homeopaths. Both indicate horizons within which we humans exist together and that we are always approaching but never reaching, thus enabling us as they constrain us.At least, that's how I understand Peirce-Dewey, Popper & Haack's non-justificationist epistemology (re: fallibilism —> falsificationism & foundherentism, respectively). — 180 Proof
At least, that's how I understand Peirce-Dewey, Popper & Haack's non-justificationist epistemology (re: fallibilism — 180 Proof
We're Sisyphusean rodeo clowns striving, at best, for better questions, Fool, not scientists with lab results or self-help gurus pimping fortune cookie (perennial) answers — 180 Proof
Apparently.Did I miss the point you were making? — TheMadFool
What disabilities?I suppose I do catch your drift to the extent allowed by my own abilities and...disabilities, let's not forget.
Logic is not ethics just as the brain is not the heart (or mouth is not the anus), respectively.What say you?
Yet, isn't sin, understood as immorality/bad independent of god re Euthyphro's dilemma? — TheMadFool
Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.”
I appreciate that the Hebrew word for sin was not used, maybe, but the concept was coined right there and then. Is that true, or not true? — god must be atheist
do not insist that it is correct. — Fooloso4
Also, "rationality brought to bear on ethics" goes back at least as far as the Aristotleans, Epicureans & Stoics ... and Spinoza predates Kant et al by at least a century. Ethics, like the rest of philosophy, is a performative exercise (reflection, contemplation) and not a propositional discourse (theoretical explanation), so it's inherently interminable, perhaps occasionally converging (by processes of eliminating patent nonsense and falsehoods) but never converging upon settled-once-and-for-all-positions. We're Sisyphusean rodeo clowns striving, at best, for better questions, Fool, not scientists with lab results or self-help gurus pimping fortune cookie (perennial) answers. Why ethics continues to preoccupy so many philosophers? Same reason "health" still preoccupies physicians & homeopaths. Both indicate horizons within which we humans exist together and that we are always approaching but never reaching, thus enabling us as they constrain us. — 180 Proof
I never understood why and the answers given seemed evasive. — Manuel
Ethics, like the rest of philosophy, is a performative exercise (reflection, contemplation) and not a propositional discourse (theoretical explanation), so it's inherently interminable, perhaps occasionally converging (by processes of eliminating patent nonsense and falsehoods) but never converging upon settled-once-and-for-all-positions. We're Sisyphusean rodeo clowns striving, at best, for better questions, Fool, not scientists with lab results or self-help gurus pimping fortune cookie (perennial) answers. Why ethics continues to preoccupy so many philosophers? — 180 Proof
Thank you for being lectured by you in a paraphrased form by telling me what I had just expressed. — god must be atheist
But once in a while it would be nice to hear from you, "Yes, you're right." — god must be atheist
Because the word sin appeared in the story of Cain and Abel, one -- at least I think so -- can't deny that the concepts had been already in place before such moment as the concept was named a unique name. — god must be atheist
I'll get back to you with a considered response if your article warrants it. — 180 Proof
an element of us wanting to feel better about ourselves so we put the good in some otherworldy domain — Manuel
but i don't think you think that. — god must be atheist
you are not counter-arguing — god must be atheist
Though there's more, these four criticisms suffice for me to judge that, in sum, your essay doesn't belong in any reputable publication of serious philosophical interest. Others, of course, may think otherwise, finding me too uncharitable – so be it. Please don't mistake critical honesty for assholery; you sought out a considered response and there's a salient sketch of one.1. Empirical assertions abound without much, if any, warrant. References to findings from moral psychology (or maybe even behavioral economics) are the kind of evidentiary support such broad claims about human nature / behavior require if you expect them to be taken seriously.
2. "Innatism" just begs the question and is inconsistent with the natural selection of adaptive traits or the cognitive behavioral phenomenon of habituation. Your thesis completely fails on this account.
3. Whether or not ethics has been defined or conceptualized to your satisfaction is irrelevant and it's patently false to claim that it's never been adequately defined or conceptualized. Consensus on moral questions or ethics as a concept, like all other areas of philosophy or even philosophy itself, is not required; thus, the fruitful prevalence of dialectical and hermeneutical methods, among others.
4. What about moral agency? The essay mentions only 'moral rules' & 'moral behavior / acts' which is not the comprehensive account as you apparently think it is without also considering moral agency. My own treatment of ethics is agency-based (i.e. eudaimonist) and very much in the traditions of and inspired by e.g. Confucians, Epicureans, Stoics, ... Pragmatists, et al (i.e. "virtue ethics"). This omission suggests a profound lack of acquaintance on your part with the relevant literature on moral philosophy (as well as the philosophy of law).
3. Whether or not ethics has been defined or conceptualized to your satisfaction is irrelevant and it's patently false to claim that it's never been adequately defined or conceptualized. Consensus on moral questions or ethics as concept is, like all other areas of philosophy or even philosophy itself, is not required; thus, the fruitful prevalence of dialectical and hermeneutical methods, among others.
What about moral agency? The essay mentions only 'moral rules' & 'moral behavior / acts' which is not the comprehensive account as you apparently think it is without also considering moral agency. My own treatment of ethics is agency-based (i.e. eudaimonist) and very much in the traditions of and inspired by e.g. Confucians, Epicureans, Stoics, ... Pragmatists, et al (i.e. "virtue ethics").
Habituation is NOT the only driving force of natural selection. What you are saying is a huge admission to ignorance about natural selection and evolution. Of course my thesis fails on this account, as this account you insist on is part of neo-Darwinism, but not the only type of criteria that is part of the evolutionary mechanism. And I actually never mentioned such a thing as "innatism".2. "Innatism" just begs the question and is inconsistent with the natural selection of adaptive traits or the cognitive behavioral phenomenon of habituation. Your thesis completely fails on this account.
1. Empirical assertions abound without much, if any, warrant. References to findings from moral psychology (or maybe even behavioral economics) are the kind of evidentiary support such broad claims about human nature / behavior require if you expect them to be taken seriously.
If we grant that God is omniscient and omnipotent, then it follows obviously and incontestably that we did not create ourselves, do not live nor do anything through ourselves, but only through his omnipotence.—God’s omniscience and omnipotence are diametrically opposed to the freedom of our will.— — spirit-salamander
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.