What is rightness? - The Philosophy Forum What is rightness? What is correctness? If we’re all shaped by our own experiences, assumptions, and biases, what meaning, then, does the word “absolute truth” hold? So when we have religious books and religious authorities telling us whether we’re straying far from or moving close to “the truth,” what is it? Where is it?
Are moral truths accessible? - The Philosophy Forum Rightness and wrongness have nothing to do with defining what is moral and what is immoral (i e , accessing moral truths) I was using "rightness" and "wrongness" in place of "moral" and "immoral"
The nature of beauty. High and low art. - The Philosophy Forum This rightness may be either of a descriptive or a prescriptive nature: the feeling of apprehending some truth, or of apprehending some good Scientific knowledge of many kinds, for example, can be beautiful in its descriptive rightness, in the apprehension of truth
Does might make right? - The Philosophy Forum If democratic decision making prevails, then the basis of rightness will rest in the might of the whole group Democratic or autocratic might will define what is right, and as many have discovered, democratic might can be as unfavorable to outliers as autocratic might can be
Believing in God does not resolve moral conflicts God is believed to be omniscient This means that God knows all moral facts (by moral facts I mean a set of facts that rightness and wrongness of an action can be derived from) if there are any Any intelligent agent such as humans therefore can know the moral facts We however know that there is no moral fact
What are some utilitarianistic analysis with regard to morality of pet . . . Evaluative Consequentialism = moral rightness depends only on the value of the consequences (as opposed to non-evaluative features of the consequences) Hedonism = the value of the consequences depends only on the pleasures and pains in the consequences (as opposed to other supposed goods, such as freedom, knowledge, life, and so on)
Maslows Hierarchy of Needs (and similar theories) How accurate is the idea of a hierarchy of needs to the human condition? Is it fluff, baseless, and too folksy to be a sound theory, or is there a correlation with a hierarchy of needs to human "happiness", "eudaimonia", or otherwise? For those who don #039;t know the theory- here is a brief synopsis
How to teach deontology? - The Philosophy Forum Deontology is introduced second and, in contrast to consequentialism, as a system that focuses on the moral rightness of classes of actions themselves irrespective of consequences (e g , lying is always wrong) While this is a somewhat superficially accurate description, it is almost entirely inaccurate in the spirit and aim of deontology
Strange Concepts that Cannot be Understood: I e. Mind Metaphysics understands this, by making reason the arbiter of the relations of our thinking in conjunction with a methodology (reasoning), and making feelings the arbiter of the rightness of those relations in conjunction with a personality (feelings) But the rightness of relations is not the rightness of the ability that makes them possible
Nothing is intrinsically morally wrong - The Philosophy Forum Parasitic organisms don't know they are causing harm to another conscious entity There is no morality involved when the organism isn't capable of assessing possible rightness or wrongness of an intentional act — CasKev