0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
That said, lying and spreading misinformation is the path to power in politics and religion. You won't get to the top by repeating obvious truths, because anyone can see the truth: genius makes untruth plausible and palatable.
If we follow Hume's arguments, then we won't find objectively good moves in the game of chess or go.
A former Republican District Attorney in Orange County who had become a GOP activist fighting against COVID measures has died from COVID. These stories are becoming far too frequent, especially now that vaccines are readily available. The fact that these deaths aren't acting as a wake up call for Republicans is possibly even more terrifying, as it signals that there is nothing - no amount of death - that will convince them to be safe. Ring of Fire's Farron Cousins discusses this.
It can only happen in a society where critical information can be hidden from society, and significant part of the society can be mislead due to lack of critical thinking.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 09/01/2022 09:12:22It can only happen in a society where critical information can be hidden from society, and significant part of the society can be mislead due to lack of critical thinking.That is, every society that has ever declared war, started a pogrom, or enslaved others. In other words, all of them.
Who we? Why "going to"? There are several extant theocracies, with varying levels of civil and international conflict, and the basic tenets of capitalism and communism can't both be right. Happy, smiling, Buddhist Myanmar has frequent internet shutdowns. The USA is only just beginning to extricate itself from the harm done by Antivaxers for Jesus and Fox News.
That's why lying and spreading misinformation in every society are considered immoral in almost all situations, with only few exceptions.
David Hume's Argument Against Moral RealismQuoteThis is a lecture video about a short selection from book 3 of David Hume's famous work of philosophy, A Treatise of Human Nature (1739–40). Hume was an empiricist. The lecture of basically a presentation of his argument from empiricism to the conclusion that there are no genuine, objective moral facts residing in actions themselves (rather, there are only sentiments of moral disapprobation or disapproval in us). This lecture of part of Introduction to Ethics.If we follow Hume's arguments, then we won't find objectively good moves in the game of chess or go.
This is a lecture video about a short selection from book 3 of David Hume's famous work of philosophy, A Treatise of Human Nature (1739–40). Hume was an empiricist. The lecture of basically a presentation of his argument from empiricism to the conclusion that there are no genuine, objective moral facts residing in actions themselves (rather, there are only sentiments of moral disapprobation or disapproval in us). This lecture of part of Introduction to Ethics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EthicsEthics or moral philosophy is a branch[1] of philosophy that "involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior".[2] The field of ethics, along with aesthetics, concerns matters of value; these fields comprise the branch of philosophy called axiology.[3]Ethics seeks to resolve questions of human morality by defining concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, justice and crime.[4] As a field of intellectual inquiry, moral philosophy is related to the fields of moral psychology, descriptive ethics, and value theory.Three major areas of study within ethics recognized today are:[2]Meta-ethics, concerning the theoretical meaning and reference of moral propositions, and how their truth values (if any) can be determined;Normative ethics, concerning the practical means of determining a moral course of action;Applied ethics, concerning what a person is obligated (or permitted) to do in a specific situation or a particular domain of action.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-ethicsIn metaphilosophy and ethics, meta-ethics is the study of the nature, scope, and meaning of moral judgment. It is one of the three branches of ethics generally studied by philosophers, the others being normative ethics (questions of how one ought to be and act) and applied ethics (practical questions of right behavior in given, usually contentious, situations).While normative ethics addresses such questions as "What should I do?", evaluating specific practices and principles of action, meta-ethics addresses questions such as "What is goodness?" and "How can we tell what is good from what is bad?", seeking to understand the assumptions underlying normative theories. Another distinction often made is that normative ethics involves first-order or substantive questions; meta-ethics involves second-order or formal questions.Some theorists argue that a metaphysical account of morality is necessary for the proper evaluation of actual moral theories and for making practical moral decisions; others reason from opposite premises and suggest that studying moral judgments about proper actions can guide us to a true account of the nature of morality.
This is the first part of the discussion for normative ethical theories. It covers the principles of deontological, consequentialism and virtue ethics theory.
What is virtue ethics? What are some of its strengths as an ethical theory? In this video we'll explore virtue ethics by contrasting it with utilitarianism and deontology.
Based on the classification described in the video above, the universal moral standard as I proposed here is classified as teleological as well as consequential ethics.
Every criticism against consequentialism essentially points out that some actions with desired short term consequences can presumably lead to undesired long term consequences.
Long term common goal: world peace.
Short-term decision: kill all priests. The end justifies the means - ask any terrorist.
Quote from: alancalverd on 15/01/2022 13:20:48Short-term decision: kill all priests. The end justifies the means - ask any terrorist.Did we have world peace before priest as a profession was invented? Wasn't there any conflict between two secular societies?