0 Members and 170 Guests are viewing this topic.
Since the existence of the thinker is the only thing that can't be doubted, it must be defended at all cost.
Cogito ergo sum is just one of an infinite number of possible axioms. It's not a strong foundation.
At the beginning of the second meditation, having reached what he considers to be the ultimate level of doubt—his argument from the existence of a deceiving god—Descartes examines his beliefs to see if any have survived the doubt. In his belief in his own existence, he finds that it is impossible to doubt that he exists. Even if there were a deceiving god (or an evil demon), one's belief in their own existence would be secure, for there is no way one could be deceived unless one existed in order to be deceived.But I have convinced myself that there is absolutely nothing in the world, no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Does it now follow that I, too, do not exist? No. If I convinced myself of something [or thought anything at all], then I certainly existed. But there is a deceiver of supreme power and cunning who deliberately and constantly deceives me. In that case, I, too, undoubtedly exist, if he deceives me; and let him deceive me as much as he can, he will never bring it about that I am nothing, so long as I think that I am something. So, after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that the proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind. (AT VII 25; CSM II 16–17[v])There are three important notes to keep in mind here. First, he claims only the certainty of his own existence from the first-person point of view — he has not proved the existence of other minds at this point. This is something that has to be thought through by each of us for ourselves, as we follow the course of the meditations. Second, he does not say that his existence is necessary; he says that if he thinks, then necessarily he exists (see the instantiation principle). Third, this proposition "I am, I exist" is held true not based on a deduction (as mentioned above) or on empirical induction but on the clarity and self-evidence of the proposition. Descartes does not use this first certainty, the cogito, as a foundation upon which to build further knowledge; rather, it is the firm ground upon which he can stand as he works to discover further truths.[35] As he puts it:Archimedes used to demand just one firm and immovable point in order to shift the entire earth; so I too can hope for great things if I manage to find just one thing, however slight, that is certain and unshakable. (AT VII 24; CSM II 16)
Best to avoid philosophy and stick to science. Scientific knowledge is the residue of disprovable hypotheses that have not been disproved. That's all there is. "Common" knowledge is the bunch of hypotheses, rules of thumb and tabulated data that we have found adequate for everyday use.None of which has anything to do with morality. We obviously can't act in contradiction to the laws of physics, but morality is about how we should act within those constraints.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Simples!If another does unto me as I would not like, an eye for an eye is just retribution.
The moral imperative is universal as long as you accept the "eye for an eye" part. Ideology is philosophy and therefore is at best irrelevant and at worst poisonous. Species has some limitation as all animals have to eat things that were formerly alive, but AFAIK all "normal" humans prefer a clean kill, except for oysters.The trolley problem isn't a moral issue. It's one of statistics.
Why so? Scientific experiments can be costly, while available resources are finite. We must prioritize which ones to be done first. That's where philosophy comes into play.
As for the cost of scientific experiments, I think it was Harold Wilson who said "if you think education is expensive, try ignorance". Most scientific investigation derives from product failure, so the budget is set according to how many lives it might save to know what went wrong"Blue sky" research has its own justification. Ronald Reagan asked, at the Lawrence Livermore laboratory, how their work contributed to the defence of the nation. The response was "It is what makes the nation worth defending." Some curiosity-driven medical research is justified on a risk/benefit ratio: if it does little harm but might lead to a big reward in areas we haven't considered, let's investigate. Other non-failure research falls into the category of public art: we fly to the moon or launch orbital telescopes principally out of public interest.
I can see that you use a very narrow definition of morality, thus many problems most people regard as moral issues are not covered.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 26/02/2020 03:44:03I can see that you use a very narrow definition of morality, thus many problems most people regard as moral issues are not covered.Can you provide an example?
Because, as Lincoln pointed out, a country consists of a defensible border, and the irreducible function of government is to raise enough taxes to pay the army that defends it. The secondary functions like enforcing rights and prosecuting wrongs take up a fair bit of the budget, and it is generally preferable to hand out welfare payments rather than have the unemployed steal food. Then there's the cost of the greater glorification of the Fuhrer: whilst the Queen travels in a Range Rover or whatever aircraft the military has available (literally - if the Royal Flight is on operations, they charter Jim Smith's Air Taxi or join a BA scheduled flight) , El Presidente Trump is so unpopular that he needs a motorcade of 20 armoured Lincolns and umpteen motorbikes to go shopping. Next come the banks: crooks who are too big to fail, so must get their bonuses when there is nobody left to cheat. Whatever is left, can be spent on science, arts, or general bribery and chicanery.
The trolley problem.
spend their resources to achieve their ultimate goal
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 27/02/2020 02:30:04The trolley problem.What's the moral question? You can do something or nothing. Doing something will result in one death, doing nothing will result in five deaths. One is less than five. Failing to act can be considered negligent or even complicit. Such decisions have to be made from time to time. A classic was the sacrifice of the Calais garrison to delay the German advance towards Dunkirk in 1940. Fortunately the Allies were commanded by soldiers, who are paid to find solutions, not philosophers, who are paid to invent problems.
Quote from: alancalverd on 25/02/2020 12:02:40The moral imperative is universal as long as you accept the "eye for an eye" part. Ideology is philosophy and therefore is at best irrelevant and at worst poisonous. Species has some limitation as all animals have to eat things that were formerly alive, but AFAIK all "normal" humans prefer a clean kill, except for oysters.The trolley problem isn't a moral issue. It's one of statistics.I can see that you use a very narrow definition of morality, thus many problems most people regard as moral issues are not covered.Golden rule has limitations when dealing with asymmetrical relationships, such as parents to kids, humans to animals, normal to disabled. The eye on eye is even narrower, since it only deals with negative behavior. It only speaks about what shouldn't be done, while saying nothing about what should be done.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 27/02/2020 03:00:51spend their resources to achieve their ultimate goal The ultimate goal of a politician is to be re-elected. This is achieved by judicious spending of other people's money, spouting meaningless slogans, and licking the arse of whoever can bring you the most votes.Astute demagogues (Hitler, Thatcher, Blair, Trump) have no interest in promoting cooperative behaviour. Defending the electorate from "the enemy within" (Jews, coalminers...), or inventing a new external enemy (Argentinians, Iraquis, Mexicans...) can be a vote winner. The trick, of course, is to choose an enemy you can defeat.