Philosophy Now Forum

by Rick Lewis

http://philosophynow.org/issues/102/Ethics_in_Society

I am wondering why Karl Marx is on the cover of this issue on Ethics in Society. He is on the cover in spades, like an Andy Warhol painting.

The issue does not explain how he may have added to the ethics of society. Did he contribute to how people threat and interact with each other? Did his theories contribute to the social networks and cultures that govern us today.?

I think why many follow him is mainly because he represents a counterculture, poking the powers that be.

[quote=Kant]when we act in our own lives, we should act as if we are legislating for the whole of society: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction,” wrote Kant, emphasizing that I can’t make a moral exception of myself. Since other people are moral rulemakers just as I am, they deserve to be treated as ends in themselves, rather than just as means to my own ends. Kantian ethics therefore is about duties we owe to one another.[/quote]Pure nonsense! So the psychopaths would rule with an iron fist, and introduce death penalty, whilst the beine would talk about it and hold hands and punish lightly.

In Europe we find sex as a natural thing and parents try to teach their younglings when they hit 15, but abore guns.
In USA they think guns are a natural thing and love them, many will let their younglings fire live rounds, but abhore sex.

Guns maims and kills ..but that's ok with many gunlovers in USA?

We often needs laws to protect humans from themselves, and choose the moral and ethical people to do so, free from cooperate interests.

The first half of the article is clueless.

HexHammer wrote:Pure nonsense! So the psychopaths would rule with an iron fist, and introduce death penalty, whilst the beine would talk about it and hold hands and punish lightly.

In Europe we find sex as a natural thing and parents try to teach their younglings when they hit 15, but abore guns.
In USA they think guns are a natural thing and love them, many will let their younglings fire live rounds, but abhore sex.

Guns maims and kills ..but that's ok with many gunlovers in USA?

We often needs laws to protect humans from themselves, and choose the moral and ethical people to do so, free from cooperate interests.

The first half of the article is clueless.

Why can't people think for themselves instead?

WanderingLands wrote:

HexHammer wrote:Pure nonsense! So the psychopaths would rule with an iron fist, and introduce death penalty, whilst the beine would talk about it and hold hands and punish lightly.

In Europe we find sex as a natural thing and parents try to teach their younglings when they hit 15, but abore guns.
In USA they think guns are a natural thing and love them, many will let their younglings fire live rounds, but abhore sex.

Guns maims and kills ..but that's ok with many gunlovers in USA?

We often needs laws to protect humans from themselves, and choose the moral and ethical people to do so, free from cooperate interests.

The first half of the article is clueless.

Why can't people think for themselves instead?

They do, that is their problem. Including the author of that article.

madera wrote: They do, that is their problem.

Okay then, how (or why) would that be a problem?

WanderingLands wrote:

madera wrote: They do, that is their problem.

Okay then, how (or why) would that be a problem?

"How many Marxists does it take to change a light bulb?” “None – the light bulb contains the seeds of its own revolution!” Quote

The seeds have been tainted, trust no man's tainted thoughts.

madera wrote: "How many Marxists does it take to change a light bulb?” “None – the light bulb contains the seeds of its own revolution!” Quote

The seeds have been tainted, trust no man's tainted thoughts.

I am by no means a Marxist at all. My somewhat "political" philosophy deals more with a more destabilized form of a community, where individualism and collectivism would coexist peacefully, that is, without the useless violent revolutions of the Marxists. If anything, I say that Marxism, especially promoted to its logical extremes, is pretty much the antithesis of freedom and individuality (ie. authoritarian, conformity), just as Fascism is on the right side of the political ideological spectrum. Thus, I have no affiliation with either Left nor Right ideologies, instead choosing my own path for meaning in life.

madera wrote:

WanderingLands wrote:

HexHammer wrote:Pure nonsense! So the psychopaths would rule with an iron fist, and introduce death penalty, whilst the beine would talk about it and hold hands and punish lightly.

In Europe we find sex as a natural thing and parents try to teach their younglings when they hit 15, but abore guns.
In USA they think guns are a natural thing and love them, many will let their younglings fire live rounds, but abhore sex.

Guns maims and kills ..but that's ok with many gunlovers in USA?

We often needs laws to protect humans from themselves, and choose the moral and ethical people to do so, free from cooperate interests.

The first half of the article is clueless.

Why can't people think for themselves instead?

They do, that is their problem. Including the author of that article.

No, it becomes our problem when they live amongst us, they don't magically keep all their thoughts and behaviour to themselves.

HexHammer wrote:No, it becomes our problem when they live amongst us, they don't magically keep all their thoughts and behaviour to themselves.

Alright, so what shall we do with these 'thinking individuals' then, Hex?

WanderingLands wrote:

madera wrote: "How many Marxists does it take to change a light bulb?” “None – the light bulb contains the seeds of its own revolution!” Quote

The seeds have been tainted, trust no man's tainted thoughts.

I am by no means a Marxist at all. My somewhat "political" philosophy deals more with a more destabilized form of a community, where individualism and collectivism would coexist peacefully, that is, without the useless violent revolutions of the Marxists. If anything, I say that Marxism, especially promoted to its logical extremes, is pretty much the antithesis of freedom and individuality (ie. authoritarian, conformity), just as Fascism is on the right side of the political ideological spectrum. Thus, I have no affiliation with either Left nor Right ideologies, instead choosing my own path for meaning in life.

That quote was not intended for you.

WanderingLands wrote:

HexHammer wrote:No, it becomes our problem when they live amongst us, they don't magically keep all their thoughts and behaviour to themselves.

Alright, so what shall we do with these 'thinking individuals' then, Hex?

We'r talking aobut 2 things here. I try to advocate civil behaviour, and renouce the instigation to anarchy which it's essentially is, when mad men are encouraged to make up their own minds.

HexHammer wrote:

WanderingLands wrote:

HexHammer wrote:No, it becomes our problem when they live amongst us, they don't magically keep all their thoughts and behaviour to themselves.

Alright, so what shall we do with these 'thinking individuals' then, Hex?

We'r talking aobut 2 things here. I try to advocate civil behaviour, and renouce the instigation to anarchy which it's essentially is, when mad men are encouraged to make up their own minds.

geeze!

HexHammer wrote:

WanderingLands wrote:

HexHammer wrote:No, it becomes our problem when they live amongst us, they don't magically keep all their thoughts and behaviour to themselves.

Alright, so what shall we do with these 'thinking individuals' then, Hex?

We'r talking aobut 2 things here. I try to advocate civil behaviour, and renouce the instigation to anarchy which it's essentially is, when mad men are encouraged to make up their own minds.

Hmmm, maybe we should study hov very well behaved countries do it? Like China, they have the best behaved children as far as I know.

HexHammer wrote:We'r talking aobut 2 things here. I try to advocate civil behaviour, and renouce the instigation to anarchy which it's essentially is, when mad men are encouraged to make up their own minds.

Not everyone who wants to make up their own minds are "mad men". In fact, those who do so are quite stronger in intellect and will than that of the herd who follows the words of authority. While I do agree that we should not throw away morals altogether, history makes it very clear of what happens when there is absolute control over the people by the state; it stifles the populace from ever becoming individuals and restricts them to the lower castes, meanwhile repressing those who dare question the nature of such society.

Hmmm, maybe we should study hov very well behaved countries do it? Like China, they have the best behaved children as far as I know.

Maybe so, but China is authoritarian that controls the lives of those within that country. Much like any other authoritarian regime, they suppress critical thought against the state, force people who are 'undesirables' into the working fields and lower castes, and control all of the things in society such as the media and what not.

It is good to have behaved children, but it's bad to exhort force on them and to indoctrinate them to believe anything instead of thinking for themselves.