Right in the middle of ethics
July 10th 2007 02:56
So, back on ethics, following the post on questioning how stupid you think you are.
As said in Damo's comment (on the post in the last link), no one can define an a priori valid ethical system: we are allways trying to lie and proove that the system we like is the good one. In the end, the is no ethical values a priori, we are all born empty.
Thus all ethics must come a posteriori, i mean, after experience. Concerning the epistemological questioning about what is knowledge, i do not agree that all knowledge come from experience, it still depends on the person interpreting it, which can be, a priori, more to one interpretation than another. But this is a matter for another post.
Reflecting about these 2 posts, i found that the grand style élargie i presented in my first posts on ethics are not out of scope. Grand style élargie is, from the begining, the place right in the middle between an utilitarian and a kantian ethical system.
Arriving to the point where we discover our own incapability to jugde the world and life all the time, and that admiting a complete stupidity is no better, having a grand style to take decisions about your relation to society is the first thing to avoid kantian mistakes. Applying it to others is the way to avoid utilitarian unwise simplifications.
Existentialist and Nietzschean answers to ethics just seem like guys trying to avoid to anwser the problems posed by our life in society. "Take your decisions as your mind tells you, and thus the responsability for them" or "Take your decisions and damn it"...
So, "enlarging" your view of "real" will make less problematic the bad conclusions of utilitarism, and having more "grand style" will avoid you to be too kantian, or should should i say, square minded.
Maybe the first thing you have to find to evolve is to find the weaknesses you have. The second is to learn and work with them, not letting them cut your posibilites before you try something..
Uula
As said in Damo's comment (on the post in the last link), no one can define an a priori valid ethical system: we are allways trying to lie and proove that the system we like is the good one. In the end, the is no ethical values a priori, we are all born empty.
Thus all ethics must come a posteriori, i mean, after experience. Concerning the epistemological questioning about what is knowledge, i do not agree that all knowledge come from experience, it still depends on the person interpreting it, which can be, a priori, more to one interpretation than another. But this is a matter for another post.
Reflecting about these 2 posts, i found that the grand style élargie i presented in my first posts on ethics are not out of scope. Grand style élargie is, from the begining, the place right in the middle between an utilitarian and a kantian ethical system.
Arriving to the point where we discover our own incapability to jugde the world and life all the time, and that admiting a complete stupidity is no better, having a grand style to take decisions about your relation to society is the first thing to avoid kantian mistakes. Applying it to others is the way to avoid utilitarian unwise simplifications.
Existentialist and Nietzschean answers to ethics just seem like guys trying to avoid to anwser the problems posed by our life in society. "Take your decisions as your mind tells you, and thus the responsability for them" or "Take your decisions and damn it"...
So, "enlarging" your view of "real" will make less problematic the bad conclusions of utilitarism, and having more "grand style" will avoid you to be too kantian, or should should i say, square minded.
Maybe the first thing you have to find to evolve is to find the weaknesses you have. The second is to learn and work with them, not letting them cut your posibilites before you try something..
Uula
| 48 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Thanks for the cameo.
I can't say much about Kant because know so little about him. Only what Adrian has passed on.
Then again I make secret of my dislike of Nietzsche. Can't agree with everyone I guess. If it is choice between two opposites you just have to make a choice on who side you wish to play.
I can only express things from my view point with evidence that may or may not be convincing to anyone but me. Fair enough, there is always room for other viewpoints.
However I am yet to find a blank slate of a person who alble to look at any issue with out their own personal baggage.