I will start by attempting to answer a question that I consider to be the basis for morality: What is the purpose of a human being, or a sentient being? I consider that question to be important because morality is about what we must do, and what we must do is our purpose, so we must ask what is that purpose. — Hello Human
we must streat others not as mere means but as ends-in-themselves — Hello Human
That means that we must respect the goals others have set for themselves while striving to achieve our own goals, because it would be preferable to maximize the amount of persons accomplishing their goals. — Hello Human
In order to flourish while respecting or promoting the flourishing of others, some qualities are useful. — Hello Human
"The purpose" for whom?What is the purpose of a human being, or a sentient being? — Hello Human
I don't believe we have a purpose and I don't see how having a purpose would necessarily be relevant to how we treat others. — T Clark
Why does "we must treat others not as mere means but as ends-in-themselves" mean that we must respect the goals of others. How does that lead to "it would be preferable to maximize the amount of persons accomplishing their goals."? — T Clark
Respecting the flourishing of others, which may be part of the categorical imperative (I'm not sure), is not the same as promoting the flourishing of others, which it seems to me is not. — T Clark
What [the hell] is the point of my existence?" vs "What are my aims, purposes, projects, goals?" — Cuthbert
It seems that we do have a purpose, though it is choosen by the person themselves. You choose your own purpose. We choose our actions. — Hello Human
My interpretation of it is that we are autonomous beings with our own goals, so we must consider the goals of other people when interacting with them. — Hello Human
My interpretation of the categorical imperative can be reformulated as a respect for the goals of others, and the accomplishment of those goals is flourishing. — Hello Human
I don't feel as if I have a purpose. I don't see that as a bad thing. I am responsible for my own actions and I guess I could choose a purpose, but it would seem degrading. Wouldn't having a purpose be the same as being a means to an end rather than and end in myself? — T Clark
I don't get the connection. I can treat someone as an end in themselves without considering their idea of their own purpose. — T Clark
What if the other person's goal is one that I don't respect. I don't have to support it, but I still need to respect the person. — T Clark
:up: Like eusociality, health, fitness, integrity, peace of mind ... which are ends-in-themselves, intrinsic to well being (i.e. flourishing), and not just extrinsic, means-to-ends "purposes" (i.e. "nostalgias" ~Camus). The OP seems to derive a "Kantian CI" from an anachronistic Aristotlean/Thomistic (or at least question-begging occult) "teleology".Wouldn't having a purpose be the same as being a means to an end rather than and end in myself? — T Clark
It seems we have a different meaning of the term end-in-themselves. What do you mean by it ? — Hello Human
You don't support it, but you still have to respect it if it doesn't do more harm than good. — Hello Human
"Whatever is hateful to you, do not do to anyone."People should be treated with respect. I think that's another way to formulate the categorical imperative. — T Clark
Whatever is harmful to our species, do not cause to happen to anyone by action or inaction; and help reduce harm whenever doing so foreseeably harms another less than it helps another. — an Epicurean corollary to Hillel's maxim
Like eusociality, health, fitness, integrity, peace of mind ... which are ends-in-themselves, intrinsic to well being — 180 Proof
To me, the important thing is the idea of using people as a means to an end. That means making decisions about their lives for our own benefit without regard to their preferences or the effects of our decisions on them. — T Clark
respecting those preferences is the same as respecting their goals. — Hello Human
I don't feel as if I have a purpose — T Clark
I remember writing about purpose sometime ago in another thread but it doesn't show up in the forum's search. I'll repeat it here if it's of any interest.
The Paradox Of Purpose:
1. Every single organ in our body has a purpose. The eyes to see, the hands to grasp, etc. You get the picture.
2. We know, at least as the status quo, that life is meaningless i.e. life has no purpose. In other words, the whole person, the entire body, taken as a unit, is without purpose.
Conclusion:
3. It is possible for the parts to have purpose but the whole not to possess one.
The universe may lack a purpose, notwithstanding its parts having one.
1y — TheMadFool
dysfunctional — 180 Proof
We're not "evil aspiring to be good" or "weak struggling to be strong" or "sick cultivating wellness" ... Rather, Fool, we (philosophers) are simply fools striving to become less foolishly, no? :smirk: — 180 Proof
You are running away from, rather running towards, my usage of "dysfunctional" to which you're referring and thereby misreading my previous post. I can't follow what you're saying, Fool. — 180 Proof
What do you mean by respect for a person ? — Hello Human
What do you think is going on? — TheMadFool
Having a function is not the same as having a purpose. — T Clark
Jefferson et. al. put it better than I could - I recognize that all people are created equal and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. — T Clark
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.