Thoughts?

-------
Jane, you ignorant slut.

---

How does one go about reading them?

---

Go to the library or a bookstore. Check out or buy Aristotle's "Nicomachean Ethics", or Aquinas's "Summa Theologiae," or Hume's "Treatise of Human Nature," or Kant's "Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals," or John Stuart Mill's "Utilitarianism" and start reading. Preferably with a highlighter.

Or even get a watered-down version of them with a regular Ethics book (Ethics by James P. Sterba should do just fine).

-------
Jane, you ignorant slut.

---

they're just emphasizing the under lying shades of grey between the black and white

---

What does that even mean in this context?

-------
Jane, you ignorant slut.

---

Quote: from coffee brown at 1:22 am on Nov. 4, 2009

---

they're just emphasizing the under lying shades of grey between the black and white

---

What does that even mean in this context?

---

it means YO MOM

-------
United forever, in Friendship and labour
товарищ

---

Each one has some very compelling arguments. I think that anyone who can't find ONE that he or she agrees with is intellectually lazy (either he/she hasn't heard of these philosophies -- which one really should have to have -- or he/she doesn't FEEL like reading them -- which one ought to .

---

---

The relativist can't reasonably argue that ANYTHING is morally right or wrong, so it's not really possible to live as a moral relativist.

---

---

There are so many different competing moral philosophies (Aristotelian ethics, Aquinas's natural law theory, Hume's theory of moral sentiments, Kant's Categorical Imperative, to name a few). Each one has some very compelling arguments. I think that anyone who can't find ONE that he or she agrees with is intellectually lazy (either he/she hasn't heard of these philosophies -- which one really should have to have -- or he/she doesn't FEEL like reading them -- which one ought to . The relativist can't reasonably argue that ANYTHING is morally right or wrong, so it's not really possible to live as a moral relativist.

Thoughts?

---

I wouldn't say Aquina's natural law ideas were very compelling at all, it was nothing more than morality based on the whim of some arbitrary God.

Kant, Hume, and even Mill were all much better. Aristotle gets off for virtue ethics, otherwise he wouldn't be all that relevant.

I agree that it isn't possible to live as a true moral relativist - if you want a hilarious argument go tell that to Kaijew - but there are limitations of the objective models too.

@Wilder: Relative to what then?


-------
Religion: Atheistic agnostic, political independent
Polyamory FAQ Relationships

---

There are so many different competing moral philosophies (Aristotelian ethics, Aquinas's natural law theory, Hume's theory of moral sentiments, Kant's Categorical Imperative, to name a few). Each one has some very compelling arguments. I think that anyone who can't find ONE that he or she agrees with is intellectually lazy (either he/she hasn't heard of these philosophies -- which one really should have to have -- or he/she doesn't FEEL like reading them -- which one ought to . The relativist can't reasonably argue that ANYTHING is morally right or wrong, so it's not really possible to live as a moral relativist.

Thoughts?

---

I wouldn't say Aquina's natural law ideas were very compelling at all, it was nothing more than morality based on the whim of some arbitrary God.

Kant, Hume, and even Mill were all much better. Aristotle gets off for virtue ethics, otherwise he wouldn't be all that relevant.

I agree that it isn't possible to live as a true moral relativist - if you want a hilarious argument go tell that to Kaijew - but there are limitations of the objective models too.

@Wilder: Relative to what then?


-------
Religion: Atheistic agnostic, political independent
Polyamory FAQ Relationships

---

@Wilder: Relative to what then?

---