For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
It makes sense to me. How we could recognize that exploiting someone is bad? This is similar 1+1=2.Terrapin Station wrote:What's next is realizing that ""I think that ethics is objective since we have the tendency to reach a better state of affair" doesn't make any semantic sense, overall, as a sentence.bahman wrote: This I understand (the bold part). So what is next?
What does "we have the tendency to reach a better state of affairs" have to do with ethics being objective?bahman wrote:It makes sense to me.Terrapin Station wrote:What's next is realizing that ""I think that ethics is objective since we have the tendency to reach a better state of affair" doesn't make any semantic sense, overall, as a sentence.bahman wrote: This I understand (the bold part). So what is next?
Read my post again. I said what your conscience says do, conscience is - voice of conscience and feeling in the heart, coming to us in two ways. So what is the debate about now, when I resolved regarding, Ethics versus rationality , that conscience is the way to go?bahman wrote:This means that you choose what you like instead of what is right. This is not reasonable.Beauty wrote: What the heart says do, that is the right thing to do as regards ethics versus rationality. The reason is not because we are both ethical and rational and so the two can bring us at the crossroad as to which way to go, but the reason is that even in the face of ethics and rationality, both not there simultaneously, the heart is the way to go. This way we know, that should something else come up other than ethics and/or rationalism, the heart always rules, makes the laws and lays down the legislation. The heart - our higher mind - higher consciousness - the Spirit in us - is God. God is always right, guiding us in the right direction through voice of conscience and feeling in the heart. "God always with us," scripture says.
Conscience by itself doesn't constitute an ethical theory, some people have no conscience at all when it comes to knowing right from wrong. Kant thought that our conscience to be a faculty of reason. This idea is closely related to the categorical imperative: "act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."Beauty wrote:Read my post again. I said what your conscience says do, conscience is - voice of conscience and feeling in the heart, coming to us in two ways. So what is the debate about now, when I resolved regarding, Ethics versus rationality , that conscience is the way to go?bahman wrote:This means that you choose what you like instead of what is right. This is not reasonable.Beauty wrote: What the heart says do, that is the right thing to do as regards ethics versus rationality. The reason is not because we are both ethical and rational and so the two can bring us at the crossroad as to which way to go, but the reason is that even in the face of ethics and rationality, both not there simultaneously, the heart is the way to go. This way we know, that should something else come up other than ethics and/or rationalism, the heart always rules, makes the laws and lays down the legislation. The heart - our higher mind - higher consciousness - the Spirit in us - is God. God is always right, guiding us in the right direction through voice of conscience and feeling in the heart. "God always with us," scripture says.
1+1=2. This means that this expression objective since it is independent of mind. Having tendency toward a better state of affair is tight to the fact that there are ethical rules that one should follow.Terrapin Station wrote:What does "we have the tendency to reach a better state of affairs" have to do with ethics being objective?bahman wrote:It makes sense to me.Terrapin Station wrote: What's next is realizing that ""I think that ethics is objective since we have the tendency to reach a better state of affair" doesn't make any semantic sense, overall, as a sentence.
Well, we need to agree that where does the conscience come from? To me conscience is the result of what we have learn in our lives so we should not substitute ethics or rationality with conscience.Beauty wrote:Read my post again. I said what your conscience says do, conscience is - voice of conscience and feeling in the heart, coming to us in two ways. So what is the debate about now, when I resolved regarding, Ethics versus rationality , that conscience is the way to go?bahman wrote:This means that you choose what you like instead of what is right. This is not reasonable.Beauty wrote: What the heart says do, that is the right thing to do as regards ethics versus rationality. The reason is not because we are both ethical and rational and so the two can bring us at the crossroad as to which way to go, but the reason is that even in the face of ethics and rationality, both not there simultaneously, the heart is the way to go. This way we know, that should something else come up other than ethics and/or rationalism, the heart always rules, makes the laws and lays down the legislation. The heart - our higher mind - higher consciousness - the Spirit in us - is God. God is always right, guiding us in the right direction through voice of conscience and feeling in the heart. "God always with us," scripture says.
"Better state of affairs" makes it subjective, not at all objective. "Better" is always subjective.bahman wrote:1+1=2. This means that this expression objective since it is independent of mind. Having tendency toward a better state of affair is tight to the fact that there are ethical rules that one should follow.
Better state of affair means better person. Better person is objective.Terrapin Station wrote:"Better state of affairs" makes it subjective, not at all objective. "Better" is always subjective.bahman wrote: 1+1=2. This means that this expression objective since it is independent of mind. Having tendency toward a better state of affair is tight to the fact that there are ethical rules that one should follow.
No, it isn't. Again, "better" is never objective, period--that is, in any context.bahman wrote:Better state of affair means better person. Better person is objective.
Beauty wrote:There is no other theory bigger than conscience, for that is God in us, and God's guidance as to ethics would be absolutely right.
Firstly, Kant has been dead for almost three hundred years so I can't ask him anything. I have already explained how conscience fits into his ethics. Secondly, Kant never married.Beauty wrote:
As for Kant, if he was here, go and ask him if when his reasoning tells him what he should listen to, or his heart which tells him otherwise, which one would he listen to in choosing a wife?
If even conscience is not universal law, how come we all have a conscience in us? Therefore, Kant is ruled out because he is only talking about setting up a universal law, whereas it is already there and he is not aware of that. So what I say is right as to following conscience. When God speaks God is right. Kant as to reason is wrong, God as to conscience is right.Ginkgo wrote:Conscience by itself doesn't constitute an ethical theory, some people have no conscience at all when it comes to knowing right from wrong. Kant thought that our conscience to be a faculty of reason. This idea is closely related to the categorical imperative: "act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."Beauty wrote:
Read my post again. I said what your conscience says do, conscience is - voice of conscience and feeling in the heart, coming to us in two ways. So what is the debate about now, when I resolved regarding, Ethics versus rationality , that conscience is the way to go?
"Ethics versus rationality" is not a correct dichotomy. In Kantian ethics reason is the proper study of ethics. In broad terms it is more like deontological ethics versus consequentialism.
Conscience is not something magical. It is the result all things we experienced and what we accepted as wrong or right. Hence listening to conscience could be right in a given situation but conscience is not a universal law so sometimes we need to carefully analyze a situation in order to act properly.Beauty wrote:If even conscience is not universal law, how come we all have a conscience in us? Therefore, Kant is ruled out because he is only talking about setting up a universal law, whereas it is already there and he is not aware of that. So what I say is right as to following conscience. When God speaks God is right. Kant as to reason is wrong, God as to conscience is right.Ginkgo wrote:Conscience by itself doesn't constitute an ethical theory, some people have no conscience at all when it comes to knowing right from wrong. Kant thought that our conscience to be a faculty of reason. This idea is closely related to the categorical imperative: "act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."Beauty wrote:
Read my post again. I said what your conscience says do, conscience is - voice of conscience and feeling in the heart, coming to us in two ways. So what is the debate about now, when I resolved regarding, Ethics versus rationality , that conscience is the way to go?
"Ethics versus rationality" is not a correct dichotomy. In Kantian ethics reason is the proper study of ethics. In broad terms it is more like deontological ethics versus consequentialism.
Conscience is a faculty of our reasoning so in this respect we can say it is universal.Beauty wrote: If even conscience is not universal law, how come we all have a conscience in us? Therefore, Kant is ruled out because he is only talking about setting up a universal law, whereas it is already there and he is not aware of that.
A religious view of conscience can be worked into a moral theory. However, if one does not believe in God then morality in this respect is meaningless.Beauty wrote: So what I say is right as to following conscience. When God speaks God is right. Kant as to reason is wrong, God as to conscience is right.