Having a function is not the same as having a purpose. — T Clark
Expand and elaborate please. — TheMadFool
Your thoughts? — boagie
So you mean to respect the rights of others. But the pursuit of happiness being one of those rights you have listed, then I don't think we really disagree with each other don't you think ? — Hello Human
I still think we disagree. Pursuing happiness just means living life as you think is best. I've committed to respecting other's right to do that. I don't see that has anything to do with goals or purpose — T Clark
Yes. This is much better! :up:I should change the title to "Presenting, Developing, and defending my views on morality" perhaps — Hello Human
I just checked ... Go to the first page of your topic (discussion), click on the 3 dots at the end of the description and then on "Edit" (pencil). The title will appear within an input box at the top.how do I change the discussion title ? — Hello Human
Living life as you think is best implies living as you want to as long as it does not harm others. You have some ideal and you try to achieve it. That seems very much like a goal. — Hello Human
I may have goals in my life, but that doesn't mean my life has a goal. Actually, the older I get, I find I don't really have any goals in my life either, but my point stands. — T Clark
I have no objections to you having a goal for your life, but what's true for you isn't necessarily true for others. People are different. — T Clark
Let's say John has some life goal, becoming a famous singer. Now he uses his time in this world (his life), to achieve that goal, which means his life is an efficient cause towards a final end. — Hello Human
Which is why my views on morality are based on respect for others' happiness. — Hello Human
As I noted, I never said no one has life goals or that people shouldn't have them, only that I don't. — T Clark
their right to pursue happiness in their own manner — T Clark
Unless their manner of pursuing happiness causes more suffering than happiness. — Hello Human
No. Unless their pursuit of happiness conflicts with someone else's life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness — T Clark
The Declaration goes on to say "... that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.." According to our values, the government should be set up to deal with the conflicts that will always arise. — T Clark
Now, who is most in the wrong here ? — Hello Human
And how should the government, and law in general choose the way the conflict will be resolved ? — Hello Human
(Note: I will use the term "morality" as it is used in the description of the topic, although I personally prefer and normally use the term "ethics".)How can we establish an objective morality if our purpose is subjective? — Hello Human
Well, "measuring" becomes a little too specific and quite subjective. It is not easy even for the person to measure these things for himself. But of course, one can have a rough idea, say, "On a scale of 1 to 10 ..." (as we do for pain! :smile:)we must have a way to measure how close a person is to flourishing, which is happiness, more specifically how happy a person feels about their actions and identity. — Hello Human
Well, OK, but I don't think we need Kant's advice on that subject, although it's good to know his views ...Now one might argue that I only considered the subjective condition for morality, but not the objective one, which is Kant's first formulation — Hello Human
Right. I already talked about "others" earlier.In order to flourish while respecting or promoting the flourishing of others, some qualities are useful. Those qualities are commonly called virtues. — Hello Human
I argue that human beings, and sentient beings in general have control over thir purpose. As Kant said, they are autonomous, which means they are self-law giving. This means that the purpose of a sentient being is subjective. — Hello Human
This is a silly example. I don't know why you're trying so hard. You don't have to agree with me. — T Clark
So, we must first set the common denominator, the common and basic purpose for all kinds of life: survival. Life wants to survive. We can assume and accept this as a fact. So, we can use it as our basis for morality. And since this is based on common reasoning, we can safely say that it is generally objective. Therefore, we can easily set as "good" and "right" that which is pro-survival --that helps and promotes survival-- and "bad" or "wrong" that which is against survival --that hinders or reduces survival — Alkis Piskas
I would argue that because we are constrained by physical stimulation, such as pain or pleasure, we would not have full control over our purpose. — john27
We can establish an objective morality only by reason. So, we must first set the common denominator, the common and basic purpose for all kinds of life: survival. Life wants to survive. We can assume and accept this as a fact. So, we can use it as our basis for morality. And since this is based on common reasoning, we can safely say that it is generally objective. Therefore, we can easily set as "good" and "right" that which is pro-survival --that helps and promotes survival-- and "bad" or "wrong" that which is against survival --that hinders or reduces survival. — Alkis Piskas
It's not a silly example. I'm simply asking you who is in the wrong in that situation. And i think everyone here would agree that it is the murderer because his actions cause more harm than the victim's self-defense. — Hello Human
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.