Are philosophers psychopaths?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Why do philosophers need to agonise over right and wrong? Is it wrong to torture a kitten? Any normal person will say, 'of course it is', but a philosopher will say,' it's purely subjective, there is no right or wrong answer'.

[SecularCauses]

Why do philosophers need to agonise over right and wrong? Is it wrong to torture a kitten? Any normal person will say, 'of course it is', but a philosopher will say,' it's purely subjective, there is no right or wrong answer'.

It's because philosophy and religion are virtually identical. They are anti-science, and here is why: The religious person believes that if god did it, then the world is meaningful. Meaningful because it has a reason for its existence. Philosophers are superstitious people writ large. If they encounter morality, for them it cannot exist unless it is somehow "rational." In other words, they are looking for the same meanigful nonsense that religious fundies look for. Scientists, on the other hand, just want to know what is out there. A scientist does not have to find morality rational or meaningful any more than a scientist would have to justify the existence of an electron as rational or meaningful. Philosophy is just an irrational religious belief that pretends to be something different from religion. It's not. Only scientists distance themselves from the nonsense of the religious; the philosophers just carry on the same old tired tradition, and are just as deluded.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Why do philosophers need to agonise over right and wrong? Is it wrong to torture a kitten? Any normal person will say, 'of course it is', but a philosopher will say,' it's purely subjective, there is no right or wrong answer'.

It's because philosophy and religion are virtually identical. They are anti-science, and here is why: The religious person believes that if god did it, then the world is meaningful. Meaningful because it has a reason for its existence. Philosophers are superstitious people writ large. If they encounter morality, for them it cannot exist unless it is somehow "rational." In other words, they are looking for the same meanigful nonsense that religious fundies look for. Scientists, on the other hand, just want to know what is out there. A scientist does not have to find morality rational or meaningful any more than a scientist would have to justify the existence of an electron as rational or meaningful. Philosophy is just an irrational religious belief that pretends to be something different from religion. It's not. Only scientists distance themselves from the nonsense of the religious; the philosophers just carry on the same old tired tradition, and are just as deluded.

Education plays a big role in morality too. Some people have to be taught that others have feelings and that it's wrong to hurt each other. Most people today would say that hanging, drawing and quartering people is wrong, but a few hundred years ago the spectacle was considered a top day out for the family.
We have laws to protect the vulnerable from the immoral.

[tillingborn]

Why do philosophers need to agonise over right and wrong? Is it wrong to torture a kitten? Any normal person will say, 'of course it is', but a philosopher will say,' it's purely subjective, there is no right or wrong answer'.

I don't think philosophers agonise over whether or not to torture a kitten, unlike some scientists, it's not part of the job. What they want to know is whether or not there is a rational rather than emotional reason not to. Personally, I would not torture a kitten; I have no good reason not to, I'm just a big softy.

[Kayla]

Why do philosophers need to agonise over right and wrong? Is it wrong to torture a kitten? Any normal person will say, 'of course it is', but a philosopher will say,' it's purely subjective, there is no right or wrong answer'.

there was a time when any normal person would tell you of course homosexuality is wrong we should execute them by castration followed by disembowelment

so the mere fact that normal people think some moral matter is obvious is not really philosophically interesting

but a philosopher may well ask what are the morally relevant differences here that would allow us to dismiss one - but not the other - as mere prejudice

[SpheresOfBalance]

Why do philosophers need to agonise over right and wrong? Is it wrong to torture a kitten? Any normal person will say, 'of course it is', but a philosopher will say,' it's purely subjective, there is no right or wrong answer'.

Then that 'particular' philosopher doesn't understand something very fundamental.

[SecularCauses]

Why do philosophers need to agonise over right and wrong? Is it wrong to torture a kitten? Any normal person will say, 'of course it is', but a philosopher will say,' it's purely subjective, there is no right or wrong answer'.

Then that 'particular' philosopher doesn't understand something very fundamental.

That would be pretty much all of them then.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Why do philosophers need to agonise over right and wrong? Is it wrong to torture a kitten? Any normal person will say, 'of course it is', but a philosopher will say,' it's purely subjective, there is no right or wrong answer'.

Then that 'particular' philosopher doesn't understand something very fundamental.

That would be pretty much all of them then.

But that doesn't change what I said, does it?

[SecularCauses]

But that doesn't change what I said, does it?

Yes, it actually does change it. You put the word "particular" in quotes, which is a statement that this problem exists in a single philosopher, as opposed to being pervasive throughout the discipline. How dumb can you be not to understand what you have written?

[SpheresOfBalance]

But that doesn't change what I said, does it?

Yes, it actually does change it. You put the word "particular" in quotes, which is a statement that this problem exists in a single philosopher, as opposed to being pervasive throughout the discipline. How dumb can you be not to understand what you have written?

No it doesn't, she said 'a philosopher' which is a 'particular philosopher.' Context is everything my son. And so if she referenced another, then obviously it would apply to that particular one as well, and so on and so on. For that matter even you were smart enough to say "...pretty much all...," so you now seemingly contradict yourself. I was simply addressing the particular one in question, however many that might include, since she hadn't sited a definitive number.

[Atthet]

Yes, just look at foggy and veggy for proof.

[SecularCauses]

But that doesn't change what I said, does it?

Yes, it actually does change it. You put the word "particular" in quotes, which is a statement that this problem exists in a single philosopher, as opposed to being pervasive throughout the discipline. How dumb can you be not to understand what you have written?

No it doesn't, she said 'a philosopher' which is a 'particular philosopher.' Context is everything my son. And so if she referenced another, then obviously it would apply to that particular one as well, and so on and so on. For that matter even you were smart enough to say "...pretty much all...," so you now seemingly contradict yourself. I was simply addressing the particular one in question, however many that might include, since she hadn't sited a definitive number.

Philosophers have to be crazy by definition because they do not deal with reality. Scientists deal with reality. Even plumbers. But not philosophers.

[tillingborn]

Philosophers have to be crazy by definition because they do not deal with reality. Scientists deal with reality. Even plumbers. But not philosophers.

The question was whether philosophers are psychopaths rather than generally crazy, lots of us are that, dontcher know? But for all our faults and silliness, the accusation that philosophers don't deal in reality can only come from someone who understands neither science nor philosophy fully. Both are trying to make sense of the remarkable thing that is reality. It is very difficult to draw the line sometimes, scientists can quite legitimately speculate about phlogiston, lumineferous aether, phrenology, string theory all of which are complete hooey (probably).
What ultimately makes something science is whether the appropriate bells and whistles go off when the theory says they should. Essentially science is about how much, largely determined by mathematics, itself a subject that only occasionally brushes reality. The question of what the underlying reality is, ontology, is a branch of philosophy, even when it is done by scientists. As I explained in another thread, whether gravity is caused by warped spacetime of gravitons remains philosophical until either is unequivocally identified.

[SpheresOfBalance]

But that doesn't change what I said, does it?

Yes, it actually does change it. You put the word "particular" in quotes, which is a statement that this problem exists in a single philosopher, as opposed to being pervasive throughout the discipline. How dumb can you be not to understand what you have written?

No it doesn't, she said 'a philosopher' which is a 'particular philosopher.' Context is everything my son. And so if she referenced another, then obviously it would apply to that particular one as well, and so on and so on. For that matter even you were smart enough to say "...pretty much all...," so you now seemingly contradict yourself. I was simply addressing the particular one in question, however many that might include, since she hadn't sited a definitive number.

Philosophers have to be crazy by definition because they do not deal with reality. Scientists deal with reality. Even plumbers. But not philosophers.

Incorrect, they have always dealt with reality, as the questioning of the nature of reality is that which bore philosophy in the first place, and thus science.

[JasonPalmer]

Philosophers are thinkers, combined with doers, they are very dangerous.

tis in our nature, to be what we are.