Agnapostate
Rookie
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #21
Too many people don't recognize the manner in which kin altruism and its expansion into communities has aided our society.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Too many people don't recognize the manner in which kin altruism and its expansion into communities has aided our society.
is that people simply don't fit into categories that well.
My views are something like this:
You get the right to believe whatever cockamamie thing you wish. You do not have the right to compel others by law or gun barrel to join you in those beliefs and doing so tends over the long haul to corrupt your organization in any case.
And if those beliefs differ from reality by very much then you run the risk of spending serious time in the nut house for your own protection as well as that of others.
I don't work so much to impress my boss as to glorify my God.
I think most people believe things not so much because they have spent a great deal of time in research to verify the facts but because that paticular thing makes them feel more comfortable.
Most people preferred the road more traveled because the path is easier and less dangerous.
9/11 didn't change the world it revealed it.
Too many people don't recognize the manner in which kin altruism and its expansion into communities has aided our society.
Why do you insist that others meet your meta-ethical standards, considering the extreme improbability that you yourself meet them? Any utilitarian, whether classical, preference, or two-level, is faced with the reality that they are not promoting the maximization of utility if they take any action that does not involve rational sainthood. By posting on a forum such as this one, you waste time that you might use conducting aid work in Africa or China.
Have I ever claimed to be a moral or rational saint? I suppose an argument might be made that if we all packed our belongings and moved to Africa and China to conduct aid work, the greater amount of revenue we earn in an industrialized society would be depleted, and we would thus not be capable of impacting the poor conditions of those societies in a meaningful way.
I don't see how you can conduct a discussion on ethics without defining the summum bonum (greatest good) anyway.
You really can't, because we really all have common meta-ethical foundations to that effect.
But people like carpe deus choose to rant and blather on about applied ethical issues without addressing the common meta-ethical foundations that most of us have, and the links between meta-ethics and applied ethics.
Applied ethics might be OK for how you are supposed to behave in a business setting or group activity but that's about as far as I would give them any credence.
I don't understand what you mean by that. Every debate that exists about the ethical status of abortion, euthanasia, environmentalism, etc., is an applied ethics debate.
But they all lack a connection with what our ultimate goal as humans or individuals should be.
Individually, perhaps. Collectively, applied ethics are a fundamental facet of ethics as a whole, if we want to be consistent in extending meta-ethical principles.
If you want live the pure life, except to live a poor life.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is the heart and soul of philosophical cynicism.
It depends on how you define "poor".
Cynicism (Greek: Kυνισμός originally comprised the various philosophies of a group of ancient Greeks called the Cynics, founded by Antisthenes in about the 4th century BC.[1] The Cynics rejected all conventions, whether of religion, manners, housing, dress, or decency, advocating the pursuit of virtue in a simple and unmaterialistic lifestyle.[1].
Have I ever claimed to be a moral or rational saint? I suppose an argument might be made that if we all packed our belongings and moved to Africa and China to conduct aid work, the greater amount of revenue we earn in an industrialized society would be depleted, and we would thus not be capable of impacting the poor conditions of those societies in a meaningful way.
You are not a saint of any variety, least of all a moral or rational one, but your advocacy of a particular ethical system necessitates that you follow it and adhere to its guidelines to a greater extent than others would.
On what basis do you deny that I do?