More on the grand style élargie
December 13th 2007 11:26
I'm just trying to think about a better system of ethics than these ones we have today.
There are the old ones (kantism and utilitarism) and some new ones (Sartre's existentialist moral and Nietzsche's "grand style"), and you should understand them all to see where i want to get.
Following this one i wrote another post where i concluded that the moral we choose for ourselves is based on how good our perception of the world is. Now it's time to put things togheter again.
Going through these posts on ethics you can see that the idea behind things is: decisions we make in society should be taken after a reflection of how "powerfull" we are, i mean, how good is our perception of reality, how good we think we can be when making decisions. Utilitarian moral forgets to think that before making our good/bad math to decide wheter an action is good or not, we have to decide how acurate we are when "calculating" good/bad results. On the other hand, kantism just leaves it completely, considering our reason as completely useless and putting all the weight on the shoulders of universality.
You can leave it all by considering good the existentialist approach, but this is just an scape from the problem. "If you can't solve it, leave it."
Well, we can do better. If you consider "grand style" in a way that it can be expanded into society and not only the individual, this application would be as close as possible to the utilitarian ideal. We still have the problem of "who can have a perfect grand style applyed to all things?". This goes for our idea of God. A God is the only one that can follow an utilitarian system of ethics and be actually good.
So the point is that men are somehow in the middle of it all. We are not Gods, but we are not animals either. Reason (from Schopenhauer's) and perception makes us able to make decisions, and we should live with this resposability in a better way than philosophy of nowadays state.
Place yourself in reality, considering what are the things you can and you can't do. Everybody does this everyday. You can make decisions for the education of your child, you can't make decisions about life or death about someone you don't know.
Trying to apply more "pensée élargie" to your life, and knowing how close you are of having "grand style" are the things you need to define what you can or can't do. Knowing this, you know how close you can be to kantism, how close you can be to utilitarism. In other words, you understand how close you are to a believer, and how close you are to a God.
cheers.
PS: Here the is another post where i present this same idea but a little bit different.
There are the old ones (kantism and utilitarism) and some new ones (Sartre's existentialist moral and Nietzsche's "grand style"), and you should understand them all to see where i want to get.
Following this one i wrote another post where i concluded that the moral we choose for ourselves is based on how good our perception of the world is. Now it's time to put things togheter again.
Going through these posts on ethics you can see that the idea behind things is: decisions we make in society should be taken after a reflection of how "powerfull" we are, i mean, how good is our perception of reality, how good we think we can be when making decisions. Utilitarian moral forgets to think that before making our good/bad math to decide wheter an action is good or not, we have to decide how acurate we are when "calculating" good/bad results. On the other hand, kantism just leaves it completely, considering our reason as completely useless and putting all the weight on the shoulders of universality.
You can leave it all by considering good the existentialist approach, but this is just an scape from the problem. "If you can't solve it, leave it."
Well, we can do better. If you consider "grand style" in a way that it can be expanded into society and not only the individual, this application would be as close as possible to the utilitarian ideal. We still have the problem of "who can have a perfect grand style applyed to all things?". This goes for our idea of God. A God is the only one that can follow an utilitarian system of ethics and be actually good.
So the point is that men are somehow in the middle of it all. We are not Gods, but we are not animals either. Reason (from Schopenhauer's) and perception makes us able to make decisions, and we should live with this resposability in a better way than philosophy of nowadays state.
Place yourself in reality, considering what are the things you can and you can't do. Everybody does this everyday. You can make decisions for the education of your child, you can't make decisions about life or death about someone you don't know.
Trying to apply more "pensée élargie" to your life, and knowing how close you are of having "grand style" are the things you need to define what you can or can't do. Knowing this, you know how close you can be to kantism, how close you can be to utilitarism. In other words, you understand how close you are to a believer, and how close you are to a God.
cheers.
PS: Here the is another post where i present this same idea but a little bit different.
| 48 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
