Philotic Web

I just wanted to see what other people's views on the concept of right and wrong were. There's alot of school of philosophy out there, and I want to see how people who haven't studied philosophy for years back up their ideas. Not that I've studied for years or anything. But I've never really heard teh ideas of anyone who ISN'T a professional philosopher.

Me, I'm a utilitarian. Most of the time. The ends justify the means. I think that right and wrong should be based on action and consequence. Good of the people.

But I'm also a big fan of deontology? deontism? Anybody know? You know, the world in black and white. You don't lie, no matter what. You don't kill, for any reason.

So many views. I want to know.

I don't know a lot about philosophy and I don't believe in a religion, but I tend to lean towards the ten commandment type morals. Just common sense that is altruistically good for everyone. Not stealing because it belongs to someone else, not you. Same with stealing a life. Lying I find is necesscary at times. Everyone has done it so is it really a considered a sin if it's natural? Envy is also normal, though being grateful is good for the heart n' soul, right?

Anyway, that's just my ten cents. Hope it means something and get's some more posts and this lonely thread...

is it really a considered a sin if it's natural? Envy is also normal, though being grateful is good for the heart n' soul, right?

In terms of the bible, most "natural" things, are sinful.
That's why sin is synonamous with ways of the flesh. Or at least, my pastor calls sinful behavior, "giving in to the flesh".

However, I'm pretty sure it's not just him. Religous people fast in order to starve the flesh, becuase that's supposed to bring us closer to our spiritual side and closer to God.

Also, "everyone does it" is not a good argument for categorizing something as natural...

Okay, it's not like I debate for a living. I was just saying what made sense to me.

And how does natural not mean something that everybody does? Explain for me so I won't mess up again.

Natural describes what is part of our nature. We are able to act contrary to nature, and so act unnaturally.

One could make a case that a sin is anything that transgresses human nature. But that then begs the question: what is human nature, and can it be transgressed?

Whoa, okay I'm not that smart. I can think about it and say what I think but my simple minded responses are all you can get from me.

Sorry, I shouldn't have posted here in the first place.

My apologies, I did not mean to belittle you. The issue in your question about what does natural mean is that many people believe that humans were once in a perfect state. If we all once were perfect, that would mean that our nature is to be perfect, and every time we are imperfect we are being unnatural, or behaving contrary to our nature.

Another aspect is that a lot of people believe in something called "natural law". This says that there is a certain natural or innate understanding of right and wrong in people (e.g. it is wrong to murder in cold blood). According to this, every time we violate this internal sense of justice, we violate natural law, and by extension, we violate our own nature.

Is the first one biblical? Because if god knew Adam and Eve would go against what he said, why did he make the rule? He knows everything from beginning to end so what was the point of making them so perfect?

I've never heard of the natural law before. But it sounds like it would be believed by people who believe humans are naturally good. Is that kinda on track?

Whoa, okay I'm not that smart. I can think about it and say what I think but my simple minded responses are all you can get from me.

Sorry, I shouldn't have posted here in the first place.

Ugh.
Stop underestimating yourself. Seriously.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who agrees with that Cezen. Syphon the Sun hates me, half of the people in Milagre ignore my posts. Sorry if I bug you too. I don't mean to do it.

Is the first one biblical? Because if god knew Adam and Eve would go against what he said, why did he make the rule? He knows everything from beginning to end so what was the point of making them so perfect?

I've never heard of the natural law before. But it sounds like it would be believed by people who believe humans are naturally good. Is that kinda on track?

Yes, that is on track. The second half was a more general description of the first half. Natural law was first described by Aristotle, I believe. It did not begin in the Christian tradition, although it has been picked up by it (which is why you thought it sounded biblical).

Ah, Aristotle. It's a good thing I'm planning on studying philosphy soon. All of these things seem to always revolve around the same people.

If you have an interest in philosophy, good for you for looking to study it. You'll find a lot of the same names keep coming up, especially Plato and Aristotle, as they were two of the most influential philosophers in history.

Right. I only know them from chemistry, but if you hear their words it's usually a no brainer who it is. Especially Plato. He was...very...what's the word?

I'm sure I'm not the only one who agrees with that Cezen. Syphon the Sun hates me, half of the people in Milagre ignore my posts. Sorry if I bug you too. I don't mean to do it.

I don't care. And, you shouldn't care enough about whether people are annoyed by your posts, to make a remark like "I shouldn't have posted here" or whatever after you post.

The only reason that they probably do that is because [I'm gonna be blunt] you're a postwh0re.
Just don't make pointless posts and you'll be fine.

On current topic: Unless you're gonna go into law, there really isn't much you can do in the field of philosophy, though.
Right?

On current topic: Unless you're gonna go into law, there really isn't much you can do in the field of philosophy, though.
Right?

Studying philosophy (well, history of philosophy, actually) helps you a lot if you are planning on a scientific curriculum; it gives you the right frame of why we do what we do (i mean science), why we pursue knowledge, why it is important, and what people did before science was born.
I would go as far as to say that Science is they only true-to-itself branch of philosophy we have left (as in "love for knowledge"). The rest has degenerated into politics, religion and pseudo-religions/pseudo-science.

My first post on this thread was not pointless. Some said I should explain what I think about the subject, and that's what I did Cezen. Yeah, I'm a postwhore. Sorry. But I have been doing better then when I first came to Pweb.

My first post on this thread was not pointless. Some said I should explain what I think about the subject, and that's what I did Cezen. Yeah, I'm a postwhore. Sorry. But I have been doing better then when I first came to Pweb.

Exactly.
So since the posts you're making here have some type of reasoning or thinking involved in them, don't apologize for making them.

Unless your post is pointless, there's no reason to think that you shouldn't have posted. Because, that's pretty much probably the only reason they'd ignore your posts and think them out of place.

On current topic: Unless you're gonna go into law, there really isn't much you can do in the field of philosophy, though.
Right?

Studying philosophy (well, history of philosophy, actually) helps you a lot if you are planning on a scientific curriculum; it gives you the right frame of why we do what we do (i mean science), why we pursue knowledge, why it is important, and what people did before science was born.
I would go as far as to say that Science is they only true-to-itself branch of philosophy we have left (as in "love for knowledge"). The rest has degenerated into politics, religion and pseudo-religions/pseudo-science.

Oh okay.
But, wouldn't be better to go into a specific field like Neuroscience or Biology? I mean, I understand that it can give you a history/origins of science and the right state of mind. But, does it actually benifit your knowledge, and add knowledge that you will need when you're doing whatever science thing you're doing?

Studying philosophy (well, history of philosophy, actually) helps you a lot if you are planning on a scientific curriculum

I interpreted Cez's post as saying going into philosophy as a main focus; standing on it's own, not assisting some other field. I'm not actually sure what one would normally do in the field of philosophy in itself... besides teach, or write books on philosophy. But I wouldn't really know.

I understand that McDonald's employs a lot of philosophy majors. There must be something truly profound in the art of flipping burgers that's lost on the rest of us.

In the end, philosophy isn't the most useful major. There really isn't much you can do with it apart from writing and teaching. I think that philosophy should never be a main job, If all you do is think, you will never think new thoughts. It takes a world of outside influence to invoke the thoughts that change things.

And to a waaay earlier post, I'm not a big fan of Aristotle and Plato. I tend to enjoy Kant and Neitzche far more.

And I feel like I missed alot of really good discussion. Stupid vacation =P

On current topic: Unless you're gonna go into law, there really isn't much you can do in the field of philosophy, though.
Right?

Studying philosophy (well, history of philosophy, actually) helps you a lot if you are planning on a scientific curriculum; it gives you the right frame of why we do what we do (i mean science), why we pursue knowledge, why it is important, and what people did before science was born.
I would go as far as to say that Science is they only true-to-itself branch of philosophy we have left (as in "love for knowledge"). The rest has degenerated into politics, religion and pseudo-religions/pseudo-science.

Oh okay.
But, wouldn't be better to go into a specific field like Neuroscience or Biology? I mean, I understand that it can give you a history/origins of science and the right state of mind. But, does it actually benifit your knowledge, and add knowledge that you will need when you're doing whatever science thing you're doing?

It doesn't always matter if the information you've learned is useful to the field of work you're in or are going into. Broadening your horizons is a great way to keep your mind fresh. Always doing the same thing puts your brain into an "auto" mode. You stop becoming involved in what you're doing much easier. You stop thinking about the work, you just are the work, and your mind doesn't actually do much.

I've not read enough of any of them to comment on my favourites. Most of the authors I've read, however, did not have Nietzsche or Kant to draw upon, and rather had only Plato for a fair while, and later on they had Aristotle as well. Certainly their influence cannot be denied, whether or not someone likes their approaches and understandings.

I'm going to pull on Gupta philosophy. The Great King Ashoka's adviser said once in his 7 rule of might: right is the child of the might. Right comes from might and right takes its roots in might. Only the powerful can be righteous, and until then, one can afford to be unrighteous. If the ruler cannot give up right as the fisherman kills the fish, then their is no hope of power.

Become powerful first, and you can define whats right. Isn't that why Christianity can define right? Because they have a lot of followers? If I had a lot of followers or in other words, might, I could make theft right, adultery right, all up to rape and murder.

I think we have 2 fundamental questions here. One would be how moral values come to be... i have no doubt that different societies have been adopting different sets of moral values along history, and this has been making them weaker or stronger. Consider two different "coutries" as parents, each with their set of beliefs, traditions and moral values, which would be their DNA. They enter in contact, which can be peaceful (trade, migration, etc) or violent (war). After this contact, their values mix, and the values of the dominant culture end up making up for most of the culture of the final result. Think that militar victory doesn't necessary mean cultural victory, sometimes it can be quite the opposite: think of the mongol empire anexing the chinese civilization, or the germanic peoples taking over the western roman empire.

The other question is whether it is possible for all humans, as thinking entities, to establish a moral system that all humans could adhere to, that would be seen as fair enough. Which is the problem Kant worked on.