What ideals do you think are good for acting man to strive for? I heard independence, hard work, self-defense pacifism, and integrity implied on these forums.
I barely know what is good for me. I don’t dream that I know what is good for man at large. It takes a lot of hubris to try to come up with objective ideals for a species.
Define “good”. Also see this title in miscellaneous section. Good for all people, or good for you? Morally good? Monetary good? Socially good?
By good, I mean morally good. Sorry if I wasn’t good.
OK. Many, many philosophers have writted on exactly this subject, beginning with Plato. Such large questions as exist in life have been discussed by nearly all religions and all societies. 50 years ago the US public high schools had such courses, which gave an overview of different philosophies, and required students to define their own philosophy - the principles they wanted to guide their life by. It’s very unfortunate that school today have long since dropped such courses. It’s also unfortunate that some think such questions to be a sign of hubris. I believe that if more people had priciples and acted consistently upon them, our society would be far better.
Question - please tell me what your morals are? Religous (such as the 10 commandments) or Social (derived from todays liberal society)?
That’s not what I wrote or meant.
“It takes a lot of hubris to try to come up with objective ideals for a species.” is what you said. Plato and all supsequent philosophers did exactly that from 450BC through approximately 1800AD. Now they all may or may not have had a lot of hubris, but through that time they have been widely read and studied, and highly aclaimed. To be educated, in the 1800’s, included a wide knowledge of these writers.
In the original question, I think you read ‘species’ into it. I was intending to determine whether he ment himself or ‘species’. But either intention is admirable. Logical answers can be achieved with a lot of work. Siince every philosopher I’ve read has reached different conclusions, at least slightly, there is no universally accepted answer. Islam, China, and America demonstrate widely different responses.
Right, not this
I think trying to answer that question involves a lot of hubris, I don’t think asking it involves hubris.
Plato and $2 will get you a cup of coffee.
No. I added species, to emphasize the scale such an answer presumes to cover.
Or little. Value is subjective.
Of course not, which is why there is no objective ideal for the species. [:)]
Now you’re just sniping. If you wish to add ‘objective’ and ‘species’ to the question, and then answer your own version of the question, go right ahead. (In fairness you ought to announce these actions first.) But do not delude yourself that you have responded to my discussion with the original questioner.
Hunh?
I was replying to the OP, not you. If you recall, I responded first to this thread.
I never claimed to. I only answered your false assertion that I was questioning the hubris of asking the question, not questioning the hubris of providing an answer. If you had correctly understood my post, we wouldn’t have a conflict right now. I only replied to you, to clarify that you had made a mistake and were misrepresenting my position.