New normative theory (also a PhD thesis)

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Viveka
Posts: 370
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: New normative theory (also a PhD thesis)

Post by Viveka » Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:50 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Oct 22, 2017 7:26 pm
Yes and No.
Intention with no act is not real intention at all, just a "feeling". A moral act without intention is not moral as it was not intended. The only real form of intentionality is the practice and manifestation of "habits". Habits are the basis of all morality, for habits are the structuring of oneself through reflection.


I would say that habits are formed through acting, speaking, and thinking virtuously.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Oct 22, 2017 7:26 pm
Because that would require one to "form an ethic" in order to be moral. If they do not then they are immoral. In this respect they would have to follow and observe the consequences of that ethic.

Ethics change through debates because the debating process acts as form of synthesis for further parties. Ethics change in many respect, however the nature of observing balance through the reflection of cause (golden mean, nichomachean ethic, 10 commandments as "mediation" points, etc.) is a constant within all ethical theory.
One doesn't have to be deontological to form an 'ethic.' Just look at Kant. Or Aristotle or Plato. Or utilitarianism. et cetera.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Oct 22, 2017 7:26 pm
There are degrees of good in everything...everyone already pointed out the obvious bad.

Salt kills, but it also preserves.
I would say that he says a lot to say very little.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1173
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: New normative theory (also a PhD thesis)

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Mon Oct 23, 2017 11:05 pm

Viveka wrote:
Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:50 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Oct 22, 2017 7:26 pm

Yes and No.
Intention with no act is not real intention at all, just a "feeling". A moral act without intention is not moral as it was not intended. The only real form of intentionality is the practice and manifestation of "habits". Habits are the basis of all morality, for habits are the structuring of oneself through reflection.


I would say that habits are formed through acting, speaking, and thinking virtuously.

Yes, agreed. But what is virtue but a form of stability through the act of mediation? A habit is strictly a repitition of medial points between extremes. These medial points between extremes in turn reflect as "frequency" of points, which in turn forms who we are. Acting, speaking, and thinking virtuously, exist if and only if there is intent. Intent exists if and only if there is "Action/speech/through". Habit exists as mediation point.

In this respect view it as a "triadic" structure where eachother point exists through the other and stabilizes the other, while maintain a degree of "individuality" in itself.


Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Oct 22, 2017 7:26 pm

Because that would require one to "form an ethic" in order to be moral. If they do not then they are immoral. In this respect they would have to follow and observe the consequences of that ethic.

Ethics change through debates because the debating process acts as form of synthesis for further parties. Ethics change in many respect, however the nature of observing balance through the reflection of cause (golden mean, nichomachean ethic, 10 commandments as "mediation" points, etc.) is a constant within all ethical theory.


One doesn't have to be deontological to form an 'ethic.' Just look at Kant. Or Aristotle or Plato. Or utilitarianism. et cetera.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Oct 22, 2017 7:26 pm


True, one can have a degree of ethics through intent only. Just as one can have a degree of ethics through act only. However a degree is a degree and both intent and act are better embodied fully through eachother.

Can I ask what you mean specifically by intent, considering the above, because intent is "usually" observed as prerequisite or part of an action?

There are degrees of good in everything...everyone already pointed out the obvious bad.

Salt kills, but it also preserves.
I would say that he says a lot to say very little.


And I am not guilty of this also? The problem of the philosopher is a problem of definition...and it is a legitimate and difficult problem to "mediate". Probably one of the most difficult.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest