prof wrote:Moral growth is encouraged by accurate feedback. If you are honest with a friend who asks you for an opinion you may be aiding in his/her moral development ... if you frame it right.
At least, by speaking truth, you are a good role-model for others.
Did you even read it?Impenitent wrote:Socrates is smilingprof wrote:impImpenitent wrote:I'm certain that your Ministry of Truth will provide accurate feedback.-Imp
Is this your idea of doing Philosophy?
Wouldn't you agree that those who know nothing about truth ought not to be so certain about anything.
The only thing I know for sure is that I do not know.
No, he's long dead, but obviously childish, pointless sarcasm is still alive and kicking.so when everyone votes to jump off the bridge, it must be Truth...prof wrote:Why didn't you look up the analysis of the concept "truth" that I offered, and maybe learn something??
Have you never heard of The Correspondence Theory of Truth? It says that when a consensus of several individual's perceptions agree with your conception - as found in some proposition you have stated - then that proposition is more likely to be "true." Let's say, for example, that you declare "It's raining outside." If other people put their noses to the window pane and see drops falling and a wet pavement, and perturbations in a puddle, they may respond, "Yes, that's true."
To illustrate the point in question: If you notice that a buddy of yours is getting obese, you may possibly do him a favor by reminding him to do something about it - before he comes down with various conditions associated with obesity. This can be done in a nice way (diplomatically) or in a way that hurts. If you did use language that hurts, you likely will rationalize what you did by saying: "I was truthful with him when he asked me for counseling." However you would be unethical because you did not minimize suffering.
If, however, when he asked you about his appearance you told him "You look great" you would not be providing him accurate feedback. You would be fibbing. In the long run you would not have maximized value - again, a failure to practice ethics.
If one is unaware that obesity is harmful, then substitute smoking in the example - but maybe that same reader has never heard of emphysema nor of lung cancer ...and could be ignorant of the misery that goes with it.
I , suspect Imp, that you CARE - at least for a good buddy of yours. Don't you?
The Libertarian ethos is: Let him kill himself if he so chooses [ by his bad habit ]. Is that a caring attitude, though? I ask you, imp, does caring have a place in Ethics? {Carol Gilligan and lots of others believe it does. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_of_care }
If you have no idea about that, tell us please why you are here at an "Ethical Theory" site? I'm really curious to know.
Thanks for an honest response.
Yes, the fact that everyone 'voted' to jump off the bridge is in fact truth, if and only if in fact they voted to do so, which says nothing of the truth in the doing of such. I expect far more from a Rush fan than this.
and by the by, your definition of the correspondence theory is not the one most epistemologists use...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspond ... y_of_truth
and check out Sosa and Kim's anthology of epistemology
-Imp
Wikipedia said:
And Prof said:Wikipedia wrote:Correspondence theories claim that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs.
I'd say that both are in fact synonymous.prof wrote:Let's say, for example, that you declare "It's raining outside." If other people put their noses to the window pane and see drops falling and a wet pavement, and perturbations in a puddle, they may respond, "Yes, that's true."