I've been pondering the concept of morality for a while now; and feel comfortable describing morality as 'following conduct that sensible people would consider good
( Read more... )
Almost all right action is ultimately self-serving, whether it is the Christian trying to get into Heaven, or the hedonist seeking what makes him happy. Morality as I see it, is just a codification of right action as seen from within a society. These usually include rules for maintenance of said society
( ... )
Almost all right action is ultimately self-serving, whether it is the Christian trying to get into Heaven, or the hedonist seeking what makes him happy. Morality as I see it, is just a codification of right action as seen from within a society. These usually include rules for maintenance of said society
( ... )
Do you agree that one can devise a set of moral rules from self-evident postulates and logic?
Don't offend someone else because he's then going to go out of his way to mess up your day.
Contribute to the good of your society because it really is easier to work as a team than to have all of us trying to fend for ourselves.
I believe I would have no problem constructing logical arguments for these two moral rules given a set of postulates that one would be considered self-evident.
If so, given two sets of moral rules - one based on rigorous logic, and one based on religious tenets; would you value one higher than the other? The logic-based rules would appear to be somewhat isolated from the specific society which would have both benefits and shortcomings.
I try to read the works of the greats, but when it comes to philosophy I consider it a cheat. If I can't work something out from first principles then I don't deserve the knowledge. Any trained monkey can say "I think there for I am!", but few could come up with such a fundamental
Comments 4
Reply
Reply
Reply
- Don't offend someone else because he's then going to go out of his way to mess up your day.
- Contribute to the good of your society because it really is easier to work as a team than to have all of us trying to fend for ourselves.
I believe I would have no problem constructing logical arguments for these two moral rules given a set of postulates that one would be considered self-evident.If so, given two sets of moral rules - one based on rigorous logic, and one based on religious tenets; would you value one higher than the other?
The logic-based rules would appear to be somewhat isolated from the specific society which would have both benefits and shortcomings.
I try to read the works of the greats, but when it comes to philosophy I consider it a cheat. If I can't work something out from first principles then I don't deserve the knowledge. Any trained monkey can say "I think there for I am!", but few could come up with such a fundamental
Reply
Leave a comment