[K2Grey]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fallingwater /img/forum/go_quote.gif People may start idealistically giving the other cheek, but there's only so much slapping one can take. And when offering the other cheek time and time again changes the behaviour of those who slap not one bit, a time comes when even the most good-hearted, idealistic person thinks "they slap me and feel good, I offer the other cheek and feel miserable. Maybe it's me who's wrong".

It is said, if you are struck on 1 cheek, you should turn the other cheek. But there is nothing that says that after you let them hit you on the other cheek that you have to turn back to the original one. Take advantage and launch a surprise attack

 

[1967cutlass]

Quote:

Originally Posted by socrates63 /img/forum/go_quote.gif OP explained that he meant studying history out of textbooks is what he hates, not history as a subject. A simple case of misunderstanding by all parties involved... let's not get into a flame war. It'd be a shame to derail a thread started by a young student who has been touched with inspiration because of adults bickering.

You're right to an extent, but it's ironic that (now having read his response...) he said he doesn't like studying history, although in doing that he's discovered the name for his "life philosophy", as well as resources for further learning.

 

[Blitzula]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1967cutlass /img/forum/go_quote.gif Saying you hate history is ridiculous, and I can't believe anyone would bother trying to have any kind of meaningful conversation with someone that says that. Is it not foolish to hate/ignore history?

I think calling someone a fool isn't conducive to a good conversation or a quality environment around here. I'd offer alternatives, but I'm sure you don't need to be lectured on treating people politely and diplomatically, even if you vehemently disagree with them.

I think it could be a misguided position to hate history, but it depends on the context. Perhaps he was saying he hates studying history. Many of us don't enjoy studying certain subjects that bore us, even though they influence or can offer good direction in our lives.

I'd say it's foolish to ignore history (as in the old cliche). But I wouldn't say hating or not studying history is by definition foolish...it depends on what you enjoy and the impact of that study on your life.

 

[eyeresist]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wali /img/forum/go_quote.gif "What is good for me is good-in-itself", to paraphrase Nietzsche. You might consider reading about Master and Slave morality by Nietzsche, since utilitarianism is a form of slave morality.

My philosophy, or at least my behaviour, is a mix of Nietzschean and Christian. Yes, Nietzsche fans, I realise how that sounds. I act in the interests of others if it's not too inconvenient to me, or if it gives a sense of fulfilment. Otherwise, I will act in my own interests (again depending on convenience and potential satisfaction).

This is probably what most people do. I'm just a lot more conscious of these choices in my everyday life.

I don't think anyone can rationally sacrifice their interest for the greater good. A strong emotional compulsion is needed.

 

[Coltrane]

Quote:

Originally Posted by uzziah /img/forum/go_quote.gif you know "do unto others" is jesus

The concept was around well before Jesus. Quite a few religious and political leaders have uttered very similar quotes, well before Jesus was ever born.

 

[kugino]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zenja /img/forum/go_quote.gif I just finished writing a paper a few hours ago about animal equality, involving Peter Singer and Immanuel Kant. I practically made fun of Kant for his silly opinions on the topic. That guy is a weird guy. He basically says that the only reason we should be nice to animals is because being bad to them makes us the same way toward other humans. I didn't think there would be many people following Kantian ethics.

kant is "weird"?!?! that's funny. i guess you haven't read much kant...he's arguably the most important philosopher in the last two centuries...i'm glad that you're smart enough to "make fun" of kant

you don't sound as though you understand kant's categorical imperative very well, but kantian ethics are actually somewhat easier to defend than utilitarianism and i think more people would lean toward a kantian perspective of ethics than utilitarianism if you wanted to categorize things...

you may not agree with kant's view on moral obligations to animals, but think about why he argues that way. how is kant's view of animals different than singer's? that is one of the main differences between the two and their moral views on how animals should be treated are easily understood.

 

[Genetic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kugino /img/forum/go_quote.gif kant is "weird"?!?! that's funny. i guess you haven't read much kant...he's arguably the most important philosopher in the last two centuries...i'm glad that you're smart enough to "make fun" of kant

Yes I'm still falling down from my chair....

Amicalement

 

[ATAT]

am I the only one who found it ironic that one would "believe" in utilitarianism? Jeremy Bentham would be rolling in his grave like a turbine.

Consequentialism makes more sense than Kant to me.. theres too much of what seems like hand-waving in Kant. That is to say, utilitarianism isn't much of an alternative.. the whole idea of trying to gauge and maximize happiness is so fundamentally flawed that it's pointless to argue.

At the same time, Kant elevates ethics into something like the ultimate judge of all human acts, and therefore above human contention.. Thou shalt not kill becomes absolute, even if that death is necessary to save others.

Also,
Quote:

he's arguably the most important philosopher in the last two centuries

Kant? I'd go with Nietzsche or Derrida.

 

[kugino]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATAT /img/forum/go_quote.gif am I the only one who found it ironic that one would "believe" in utilitarianism? Jeremy Bentham would be rolling in his grave like a turbine. Consequentialism makes more sense than Kant to me.. theres too much of what seems like hand-waving in Kant. That is to say, utilitarianism isn't much of an alternative.. the whole idea of trying to gauge and maximize happiness is so fundamentally flawed that it's pointless to argue. At the same time, Kant elevates ethics into something like the ultimate judge of all human acts, and therefore above human contention.. Thou shalt not kill becomes absolute, even if that death is necessary to save others. Also, Kant? I'd go with Nietzsche or Derrida.

oh, that's certainly one of the problems with kantian ethics...

and that's why i said "arguably"

.

 

[Czilla9000]

I'm anti-utilitarian.


I believe individual rights and liberties supercede the common good.

ie...

I don't think you can usurp the freedom of others in the name of the common good.

Quote:

I hate when people act greedily when their tiny misfortune can be a huge benefit for others.

True...but they shouldn't be forced by government to sacrifice. I don't believe in compulsatory service. It's called slavery.

 

[dhp]

Yeah, I lean more toward Kantian ethics, with an emphasis on deontology. I think that if everyone acts with good intentions, inevitably it will lead to greater happiness for the greater good regardless

 

[eyeresist]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Czilla9000 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I believe individual rights and liberties supercede the common good.

So I have the right to kill a million people, that's my right as an individual?

 

[Zenja]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kugino /img/forum/go_quote.gif kant is "weird"?!?! that's funny. i guess you haven't read much kant...he's arguably the most important philosopher in the last two centuries...i'm glad that you're smart enough to "make fun" of kant you don't sound as though you understand kant's categorical imperative very well, but kantian ethics are actually somewhat easier to defend than utilitarianism and i think more people would lean toward a kantian perspective of ethics than utilitarianism if you wanted to categorize things... you may not agree with kant's view on moral obligations to animals, but think about why he argues that way. how is kant's view of animals different than singer's? that is one of the main differences between the two and their moral views on how animals should be treated are easily understood.

No, I haven't read much Kant. Yes, he is very important and influential. Making fun of Kant on specific points doesn't require being "smart enough." Other than saying that we have no duties to animals and why, the only other important thing he says in the piece I read can be easily made fun of because it doesn't make much sense and can be easily disproved empirically. I don't understand the categorical imperative very well, although I do know the basics of what it is.

I'm not very aware of the philosophical area of study, so it doesn't surprise me that I was under the wrong impression when I thought kantism wasn't too common. I don't recall anyone actually saying anything about kantism before I read this stuff recently.

 

[Czilla9000]

Quote:

Originally Posted by eyeresist /img/forum/go_quote.gif So I have the right to kill a million people, that's my right as an individual?

No....because in the process you would be violating the individual rights of a million people.

 

[dhp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by eyeresist /img/forum/go_quote.gif So I have the right to kill a million people, that's my right as an individual?

I almost typed something intelligent, but it'll be wasted