You though you got rid of me and my open philosophical questions, but I'm back. This time morality.
There are two main theories of morality that I know of, Kantism and utilitarianism. Utilitarainism (I'm already getting really sick of spelling utilitarianism, especially since it's probably wrong. If anyone can come up with an abbreviation or symbol like two ducks holding some paper clips with a sign on their backs that says 'for sale' it would be very helpful. Not that I couldn't do it my self but... whatever.) says that an act that is most moral causes the most total happiness spread throughout any number of people. So you could wrong one person and make them unhappy as long as it makes other people happy enough so their cumlative happiness outweighs that of the wronged person. Of course there is no way to tell how much happiness an action will bring, and there's no rule for how much happiness a killed person loses, but it's the idea that's important.
Next is Kantism, though up by... you guessed it, (Emanual) Kant. His system of ethics is much simpler. Basically it is the golden rule, treat others as you wish to be treated. There are basic laws of morality that everyone must follow that are established by what people wouldn't want someone to do to them. As long as you follow these rules you are being moral.
If there are any corrections to my basic and illinformed definitions do not hesitate to post them. But the main idea of this was to see which of these philosophies you agree with. I'm a utilitarian myself but I have my doubts about some parts of it. But I'll shut up now.
Originally posted by ark13Interesting thread. I don't know enough to give an educated response. My "Feeling" is that the golden rule works. It is what I was taught, and I didn't chuck it out when I left my culture. It served my well in personal life and in my business and professional life.
You though you got rid of me and my open philosophical questions, but I'm back. This time morality.
There are two main theories of morality that I know of, Kantism and utilitarianism. Utilitarainism (I'm already getting really sick of s ...[text shortened]... t I have my doubts about some parts of it. But I'll shut up now.
So. What does that make me? Probably a person who can't "Decide" that issue. That's a definite "maybe". I'll just remain neutral. Then I can take the winning side later. 😉
Oh... as per the abbreviation... how about "Whatever dude." which can be abbreviated to just "W" which can be "DubYaw"? What do you think? ps... this is a joke.
Originally posted by ark13I'm a utilitarianist.
You though you got rid of me and my open philosophical questions, but I'm back. This time morality.
There are two main theories of morality that I know of, Kantism and utilitarianism. Utilitarainism (I'm already getting really sick of spelling utilitarianism, especially since it's probably wrong. If anyone can come up with an abbreviation or symbol like ...[text shortened]... I'm a utilitarian myself but I have my doubts about some parts of it. But I'll shut up now.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungMe too, as I said before, but I have some doubts. Such as, in W (I'm just gonna use it) it is possible, morally, for an innocent person to get wronged or even killed just for the greater cumulative happiness of others. Is that fair? No! But it does increase overall happiness. Does that tip the balance? I don't know. I wouldn't want to be on the losing end of that deal, but then again being on the winning end would be great.😉
I'm a utilitarianist.
Originally posted by ark13W = Utilitarianism, I'm guessing.
Me too, as I said before, but I have some doubts. Such as, in W (I'm just gonna use it) it is possible, morally, for an innocent person to get wronged or even killed just for the greater cumulative happiness of others. Is that fair? No! But it does increase overall happiness. Does that tip the balance? I don't know. I wouldn't want to be on the losing end of that deal, but then again being on the winning end would be great.😉
Such as, in W (I'm just gonna use it) it is possible, morally, for an innocent person to get wronged or even killed just for the greater cumulative happiness of others.
Yes, this is true. An example would be if Hitler has been assassinated, the assassination would be morally good.
You should clarify what you mean by 'wronged' and 'fair'. This is important to addressing your doubts.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIf hitler had been "assasinated" perhaps the person doing the deed would have been doing a "morally" good deed. But for a person who did not participate in the deed to say that the deed "Is/Is Not" moral is just an opinion. A view of history. There is nothing moral or immoral in having a view of history. I guess I am asking "Is morality of an event measurable outside of the persons involved in the event?"
W = Utilitarianism, I'm guessing.
[b]Such as, in W (I'm just gonna use it) it is possible, morally, for an innocent person to get wronged or even killed just for the greater cumulative happiness of others.
Yes, this is true. An example would be if Hitler has been assassinated, the assassination would be morally good.
You should clarify what you mean by 'wronged' and 'fair'. This is important to addressing your doubts.[/b]
Seems that those outside of the deed are just observing and posting a nebulous chimpness. The deed was done. Those involved had a "moral content". Everyone else is entitled to an opionion. Not a share of the deed. Some person "Decided" and acted. Everyone else just chitters away like they own the universe.