How stupid do you think you are? (on Kant, Bentham, Nietzsche and Sartre)
July 2nd 2007 18:48
Hey all,
sorry for the title, but it's a funny way of try to define how should you behave, which ethical 'system' you should choose.
This is still between Bentham and Kant, i'll get to Nietzsche and Sartre in the end (if this doesn't get too big).
Following the presentation of this 2 ethical systems (kantism and utilistarism), you can guess from the title the main idea of the post: how much do you think you can decide what is 'good' or 'bad', so that you can use an utilitarian system and have a good result?
If you think you can't imagine the world 2 days after today, or you think you can never know if the people around you are good or bad, you go for Kant. In the end, his system is a perfect one if you're in a world of dumb people. That's why religion is the best way to save a jungle...
If you think you can define how good or bad an action is, or will result in the future, you go for the utilitarian approach. It means, you lie sometimes, because you know you'll be doing a greater good than the lie you tell.
In the end, is just a question of how dumb you think you are. If you think you can understand the world well, know people around you, see where things can get, you may do some 'unethical' things because you know it will result in a greater good. On the other had, if you don't know exactly what you're doing, do good, and noone will be able to acuse you of something in the future....
Well, this takes us to 2 of the new ethical systems defined in the last century.
For Nietzsche, nothing is 'good' or 'bad', the world is full of shades of grey. So the people who sell around that "this is good, bacause etc.." are telling the world nothing but bullshit they believe themselves. The only ethical value you can dig in his philosophy is that men can't judge the value of life, mainly because his part of it.
Last but not least there is Sartre, who just thinks you have to pick an option, and take the responsabilty for your actions later. Hehe, mainly, his saying "well, we do not know excatly what is good or bad, so you just choose what you think is the best, and if you're wrong, it was bad luck..."
So, in the end, the question remains: how stupid do you think you are?
cheers. Uula
sorry for the title, but it's a funny way of try to define how should you behave, which ethical 'system' you should choose.
This is still between Bentham and Kant, i'll get to Nietzsche and Sartre in the end (if this doesn't get too big).
Following the presentation of this 2 ethical systems (kantism and utilistarism), you can guess from the title the main idea of the post: how much do you think you can decide what is 'good' or 'bad', so that you can use an utilitarian system and have a good result?
If you think you can't imagine the world 2 days after today, or you think you can never know if the people around you are good or bad, you go for Kant. In the end, his system is a perfect one if you're in a world of dumb people. That's why religion is the best way to save a jungle...
If you think you can define how good or bad an action is, or will result in the future, you go for the utilitarian approach. It means, you lie sometimes, because you know you'll be doing a greater good than the lie you tell.
In the end, is just a question of how dumb you think you are. If you think you can understand the world well, know people around you, see where things can get, you may do some 'unethical' things because you know it will result in a greater good. On the other had, if you don't know exactly what you're doing, do good, and noone will be able to acuse you of something in the future....
Well, this takes us to 2 of the new ethical systems defined in the last century.
For Nietzsche, nothing is 'good' or 'bad', the world is full of shades of grey. So the people who sell around that "this is good, bacause etc.." are telling the world nothing but bullshit they believe themselves. The only ethical value you can dig in his philosophy is that men can't judge the value of life, mainly because his part of it.
Last but not least there is Sartre, who just thinks you have to pick an option, and take the responsabilty for your actions later. Hehe, mainly, his saying "well, we do not know excatly what is good or bad, so you just choose what you think is the best, and if you're wrong, it was bad luck..."
So, in the end, the question remains: how stupid do you think you are?
cheers. Uula
| 48 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
What if I reject all of them and come up with my own brilliant way of life and thinking?
I think what is missing is how much personal prejudice taints the choice.
How dumb are people? Are they dumb?
Why did these people pick the route they chose to defend?
Were they just sitting around trying to find enlightenment like Lord Buddha, or were they trying to vanquish an intellectual enemy or were the sucking up to some hero of that time?
I think there is a lot of vanquishing and sucking up in some intellectual circles.
Just my humble musings
Damo
Comment by Uula Limanski
Thinking The World
i agree with you when you say that these people are most of the times trying just to convince you that the way they've choosen is the good one. Like Nietzsche say, they are all trying to fool each other.
in the end, there is no moral that is the best to follow, but the things these people said helps us understanding better what it is to make decisions. It helps you out, and you can switch between any of these ethical 'systems' as you wish. And there is another good thing, it helps you understand the world, and how people think...Even if sometimes they've never read any of those guys, they're using their ideas every day.
One last time on Nietzsche: you have to create your own system yourself, or even better, leave it and discover that there is no ethical restrictions at all...who are you to say what is good or bad? it's a question of point of view, hehe
Thanks for the comment. Uula