Are you just playing devil's advocate or do you see real ramifications for the difference? — Monitor

In some ways I’m trying to work out where we’re going.

Edit: yes I see real ramifications. If I’m correct?

“ So act as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in another, always as an end and never as only a means.”

It seems to me that ideology is about means. That is the difference from morality.

If you do not vote in an election, you are still affecting the outcome. So you are not really involved in a non action. — Monitor

In theory then you would have to apply non-action to everything you do. Can you really see that as the moral choice when you do it sometimes and don’t other times?

If morality and ideology are different then which one should we choose to address education, science, politics?

Are we as a society moving away from morality to ideology?

Are morality and ideology different.

Is the categorical imperative an ideological concept?

So far, I've seen no coherent line of inquiry. — creativesoul

That’s why I’m here, to try and work out my thoughts.

“Thou shall not kill.”

That’s a categorical imperative. True?

Do you mean make clearer my point?

"What if everyone acted like that?"

"If everyone acted like that, would the world be a better place?" — creativesoul

So in this case: “the right thing to do” is what? how is someone to carry out that act?

It depends what you mean by moral or ideological? That is a whole debate beyond the basics of the categorical imperative. — Jack Cummins

I don’t think it’s is. I’m trying to determine what is a moral position and what is an ideological position using the categorical imperative.

I chose same sex marriage because of the statement “it’s the right thing to do”. Why is it the right thing to do? Same sex marriage is not the issue, it’s just that the statement was attached to their campaign.

The subject is not gay marriage but whether that statement is a moral statement.

Just in case you missed this:

Prior to the vote for same sex marriage the position of those for it was “it’s the right thing to do”.

Why is it the right thing to do?

I’m trying to determine whether we are addressing contemporary issues from a moral or ideological position.

Prior to the vote for same sex marriage the position of those for it was “it’s the right thing to do”.

Why is it the right thing to do?

But could non action be regarded as a Categorical Imperative?

I think what I’m trying to do is work out what are we addressing social issues with, are we addressing them morally or ideologically?

I think the moral choice is not "for it" but to not stand against it. That could be defended as a moral position. — Monitor

But wouldn’t that mean that the action is to do nothing, which would hardly be moral.

Perhaps it can be applied more usefully to the political issues of our time rather than to issue the one of same sex marriage. This is because most people who are opposed to same sex marriage are not really objecting with a view to what if everyone made this choice. — Jack Cummins

I guess what I’m trying to work out, with same sex marriage as an example, is whether it’s an ethical decision in supporting it or an ideological decision.

Sorry, I’m here to laugh at you, not enlighten you.

You guys are meant to be so smart, but I don’t think so.

How is it that you can’t see what’s happening?

Is it that you can’t see or just don’t want to see? Or is it all too much for your peanut brains.

I don't understand all the cherry picking here.

How do you think jobs are created, where does the tax the government collects come from?

Isn’t the question then, if there is a difference, what’s the difference between those who philosophise and those who do business?

Is that all you could take from my post?

Well considering all it did to ensure his residence and very existence — Outlander

What are you referring to?

I’m not trying to harass you here, just putting my thoughts down as they arise.

This is the core question of the OP;

So why is it that most people that are interested in philosophy aren't interested in Entrepreneurship? — Gitonga

It’s about “most people”. My priority here is to clearly establish just who the philosophers and entrepreneurs are. Some people see entrepreneurs as Gates or Bezo, which warps the idea severely, and some view philosophers as those who do something that resembles academic philosophy.

Of course there’s no crossover there. They probably hate each other. But that leaves plenty of room for crossover between others, don’t you think?

I’m smart enough to know that “seems to oversimplify” or “another broad simplification” is not a worthwhile objection to every statement that you happen to disagree with. — Stan

To oversimplify even more, I evaluate most philosophers as introverts and most entrepreneurs as extroverts. — Stan

I thought we were on the same turf here. You oversimplified and I pointed out another simplification.

But you’re smart enough to know what I mean.

this’s probably not the sort of discussion the typical successful entrepreneur would be interested in. He or she would, I think, have little patience for that. — Stan

Another broad simplification.

We’re participating in something, a set of questions and answers, discussions that resemble academic philosophy, the most salient aspect of which is a set of rules. — Stan

Who said it was that? And what’s it for even if it is that? What’s its purpose?

“ He has a philosophy of life in the everyday and colloquial sense, ”

Edit: if it’s not for this then what is philosophy for?

Just to be clear about who I’m talking about when it comes to entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs exist all over the world in incredibly varied circumstances. I would hazard a guess that it’s the entrepreneurial spirit that keeps many families in India housed and fed. Their business might be in translating letters, or riding bikes, selling second hand phones or fruit at a roadside stall.

Closer to home; a couple or individual decide they want to open a cafe. They borrow money from the bank and contribute their own savings towards the investment. They find a space and sign a long term agreement, they fit out the space, buy the equipment and hire staff. Or they borrow more money and buy an existing cafe. Whatever the profits they make each week they pay the staff, rent and utilities first. They take a wage themselves and they reinvest everything they make. Generally no one expects to do well in the first year, they just want to survive. But whatever the ups and down the bank still expects their payments to be made, the landlord expects his rent, the energy company expects their payments, the good suppliers expect theirs. There’s no charity. In time things even out a bit more. They might grow the business, employ more staff, take on a chef to create a new menu, create a bigger customer base, and finally begin to make some money. What’s wrong with any of this? If they can’t deliver the goods the customers stop coming. Then everyone loses. Who are the risk takers here?

Philosophy and entrepreneurship are vastly different disciplines, so very few individuals would be able or even interested in making that sort of crossover. — Stan

This seems to over simplify things to me.

I know a few people who we would call entrepreneurs. Each of them has a particular philosophy they live by, and it’s not about making money. The making of money supports their chosen way of life which is based on a view of life they have and how they engage with it.

For instance one of them decided he wanted to be free and independent in the world instead of being beholden to someone who decides what he gets paid, what his hours will be, how he’ll do the job, and what his future might be. He has four children, he wants to raise them in a similar way. He believes in honesty and integrity. He takes nothing from the state and receives nothing from them. If things go badly he loses and takes it on the chin and hopes to recover in the near future. He has a set of beliefs about society, family, government and business. He’s created jobs, given people the opportunity to develop and grow and even go out and start their own business. I would regard him as having a particular philosophy in life. This is the philosophy of action instead of contemplation. That’s why philosophers aren’t interested in entrepreneurial activities, it requires risk and actually engaging with the chaos of the world.

if we are considering a scenario with teletransportation, we aren't having a discussion that's constrained by the limits of technology. We could imagine flawless organ transplants, — Tarrasque

Sure. But perceived as flawless by the self, or science.

Also, my point in bringing up cell replacement was this: at 65 years of age, you have undergone so much cell replacement that very little of your physical 20-year-old self remains. If this degree of replacement is equivalent to death, we would have to regard people as dying simply within the process of aging. — Tarrasque

I don’t think cell replacement is the equivalent of death, it’s that the replacement is not forever or of the same quality, which eventuates in death,

You could live a perfectly fine life with a donor lung. Why not two donor lungs? — Tarrasque

You need drugs to stop the rejection. So it’s not that simple, don’t you think? The body (self) rejects the foreigner.

If just your body's matter changing gradually leads to death, you die in this sense multiple times throughout your life, inevitably. — Tarrasque

A nice theory, but in reality the replacement slows down over time until something no longer functions and stops.

And if I’m happy with organ removal, or replacement, is that a sign of the new man who’s slowly separating from the self.

It could be said that my kidneys are required to function "most" effectively, yet, we usually don't think of people as having died/lost their identity when they have a kidney removed. — Tarrasque

But I would only do it if the result of not doing it was my death. I need a healthy body for my self to act. Fingers, toes, eyes, arms, etc. I can’t do without an organ. I need everything I’ve been given.

Edit: It’s not about identity for me.

Obviously, we change the material we are composed of over the course of regular life. — Tarrasque

Yes, but this leads to death.

So you feel no risk to the self in the process?

I need all the parts that enable me to act the most effectively.

Interesting. I need to think about it.

Not the brain. Yes, separate but dependent.