SilverFlight
Tende altum, volare altius
So collectively we have a good understanding of physics, moral philosophy, biology, what else do we collectively know?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Honestly it's a subtle difference. Without going into a lecture, they are two philosophies that seek to do what they think is right/moral. The difference lies in how they determine what is ethical.
For Kantianism, it's fairly simple. Every human is deserving of dignity, and it is every person's duty to follow this absolute moral imperitive. In essence, they perform this thought experiment on their actions. Would the action be beneficial if every person in the world performed it? Example: I'm going to kill the next person I meet. If everyone did that, almost eveyone would be dead. Obviously not a good move. Another example: I am starving to death and need to steal some bread to eat. What if everyone stole some food? Nope, not beneficial. So, under Kantian ethics it would be wrong, even though you're denying someone (yourself) happiness.
On the other hand, Utilitarianism is much more an "ends justify the means" kind of thing. Utilitarianism is prepared to sacrifice the few for the happiness of the many. This is obviously a much more gray area. Essentially, the morality of a Utilitarianist's action are relative to their results. Example: Do you sacrifice one life to save a thousand? Under Utilitarianism, yes, you do. You're looking to promote the greatest amount of happiness you can, so you weight the actions and the outcomes. It naturally follows that 4000 > 1.
Using that same example in regards to Kantianism, you would never sacrifice anyone for any reason ever. Human life is to be treasured and every person deserves to be treated with that kind of respect.
Edit: Sorry, I guess it kinda did turn into a lecture. >_>
I'm getting a degree in psychology next week! Just a 2 year, but I suppose it's something.
@zCrookedz Me too! I'm only glad to feel my education hasn't completely gone to waste. >_>
@zCrookedz Oh goodness, there are as many philosophical schools as you can count. I wouldn't be sure where to start.
@SilverFlight
@avira
@zCrookedz
It is actually limited, but its the fact he appeals directly to the masses. Those that are affected by this: soldiers, workers, scientists, traders.
He lives a long time, so he knows how to play the long game to his advantage.
For example: he's going to put forth a motion to place a supply/habitation platform in space above the Vos homeworld. They pay for the cost of the construction and ask only for 5% of earnings for a year to cover the cost.
In exchange, the Vos get a close source of food, protection (because they have to protect their investment) as well as a chance for a sizeable economy based on agriculture.
This makes the Ascended look good in the eyes of the Vos, where as with the Coalition, its like 'where were you when we needed you?'
Honestly it's a subtle difference. Without going into a lecture, they are two philosophies that seek to do what they think is right/moral. The difference lies in how they determine what is ethical.
For Kantianism, it's fairly simple. Every human is deserving of dignity, and it is every person's duty to follow this absolute moral imperitive. In essence, they perform this thought experiment on their actions. Would the action be beneficial if every person in the world performed it? Example: I'm going to kill the next person I meet. If everyone did that, almost eveyone would be dead. Obviously not a good move. Another example: I am starving to death and need to steal some bread to eat. What if everyone stole some food? Nope, not beneficial. So, under Kantian ethics it would be wrong, even though you're denying someone (yourself) happiness.
On the other hand, Utilitarianism is much more an "ends justify the means" kind of thing. Utilitarianism is prepared to sacrifice the few for the happiness of the many. This is obviously a much more gray area. Essentially, the morality of a Utilitarianist's action are relative to their results. Example: Do you sacrifice one life to save a thousand? Under Utilitarianism, yes, you do. You're looking to promote the greatest amount of happiness you can, so you weight the actions and the outcomes. It naturally follows that 4000 > 1.
Using that same example in regards to Kantianism, you would never sacrifice anyone for any reason ever. Human life is to be treasured and every person deserves to be treated with that kind of respect.
Edit: Sorry, I guess it kinda did turn into a lecture. >_>
So, what is your response to The Case of the Inquiring Murderer?
I wouldn't do it. I mean, in Kantianism it's obvious that you should and why. But man, I still wouldn't. That's the thing about Kantianism, it's so strict in its interpretation of morality and ethics. I can get why someone would find a kind of comfort in it, seeing the world in such black and white. But, I personally think there's some wiggle room to be had.
What about you? Or more importantly, Solia and Mehrunes?
So, what is your response to The Case of the Inquiring Murderer?
What is that?
It's a philosophical thought exercise.
A man walks up to you, asking "Do you know the whereabouts of Mr. Smith, for I mean to kill him." You know exactly where Mr. Smith is at the time. How do you answer the question?
Hmmmm, for me I would need to know more information. is Mr smith a criminal? did he comitt a worse crime? so many questions that I would want to know before disclosing Mr smith's wearabouts
If you were put into this position, which side would you favor more?
Speaking of the council, did we ever land on a name? Just, the Council? Or? @SilverFlight