|
Guest
|
|
|
RE:The Three Systems of Ethics
(Date Posted:03/25/2008 13:41:03)
Of the three you set forth below, which are you inclined to advocate? And do you dare to commit yourself to one over the others?
|
| Support us |
Create free forum and click the links below and your donations will make a difference here. |
 |
Super Virtual Game Currency Online Store
Lowest quotation. IGXE commits itself to offer the WOW Gold in lowest price with the reliable service in the market. You can buy cheapest wow gold safely and enjoying our fastest delivery in 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
|
|
Agathon_A
|
2#
|
Time spent: 0 hours
|
RE:The Three Systems of Ethics
(Date Posted:03/25/2008 13:43:15)
I would have to admit that the third one is my favorite. Plato is my hero, I have just finished reading The Republic and most of his dialogues. (I highly recommend the Phaedrus, it is the best explanation of what love is I have run across thus far.) I am not as well acquainted with Aristotle as I would like to be but after reading the Nicomachean Ethics I find myself in disagreement with lots of his points, especially his distinctions between "knowledge" and "right and wrong". I think the two concepts go hand in hand. But despite my disagreements I have to say that his system is mainly influenced by his master Plato.
So in summation the third is the style of ethics I would subscribe to but at times find myself favoring the Macchiavellian principles purely for selfish reason. You know what they say "It is easier to fight for your principles that to live up to them." And so I am a Socratic/Platonic by heart but a little Macchiavellian by actions. Which system of ethics do you favor?
(Message edited by Agathon_A On 03/25/2008 13:43:55)
|
|
Guest
|
|
|
RE:The Three Systems of Ethics
(Date Posted:03/25/2008 13:45:31)
I find that all three philosophies on Ethics invade my consciousness from time to time, but I strive for the Buddhist version. The Machiavellian approach caters to my “dark” side, which admittedly I have yet to completely vanquish. Machiavellian is the philosophy of such individuals as Chaney, Bush, Osama Bin Laden, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and the like. In accordance with the Buddha way, we must love them, but we don’t have to embrace their methods. (Luke, don’t give in to the dark side!) The problem I have with the third (Ancient Greek) is that it is so subjective and opinionated. How do you define “Intelligence and Knowledge” and where do these fit into the concept of “Wisdom”? Cannot a man (or woman) be completely illiterate and isolated in a small village away from the modern world be as wise as, or wiser, than the most educated man of worldly sophistication? In the end, all three are part of the human condition. 2 & 3 are the most prevalent, to be sure. 1 is by far the most lofty challenge. But, what a waste of time if indeed we are simply “mud”!
|
|
Agathon_A
|
4#
|
Time spent: 0 hours
|
RE:The Three Systems of Ethics
(Date Posted:03/25/2008 13:47:02)
It is always good to discover another thinking man interested in conversation.
Coming from a man that favors the Ethics of Buddha the idea that we may be nothing but "mud" both surprises me and intrigues me so that is the first point I would like to deal with.
I am a person of very secular (grounded) believes and the truth is that when it comes to life after death all we can do is speculate. I cannot be sure of the existence of past-lives or of heaven and hell but I can tell you that I am sure of the fact that the soul of men is immortal. Francis Bacon wrote: "Men are not animals erect, but immortal Gods". We are the only creative species in this world and with creation comes immortality. I refuse to believe that something formed from the "mud theory" sculpted the Pieta' by Michelangelo, I cannot believe for one second that the Divine Comedy was written by an animal! Thomas Jefferson is alive today because his words are alive. Our judicial system is still partly based on the work of a man that lived 2500 years ago. So, isn't he immortal? The moment MEN become a creator is the moment MEN become immortal.
This is what I personally believe and does not necessarily make it true but I feel I am in good company in believing o the immortality of men.
Allow me to return to "The Three Systems of Ethics" now. The Ethics of Buddha and Jesus is the most spiritually driven of them all and therefore the best one applicable to the concept of "men the God". However we do live in a world principally constituted by atoms (material) and are forced to consider issues that are ofter related to matter. Let's make an example, if you have a basket containing one hundred eggs, and that is all the food you have to feed your family, and suddenly a strange man walks up to the basket and starts throwing eggs onto the ground. In this case returning love for evil can cost your family's survival so you have to intervene with enough force to put a stop to the waste of your food supply. A Macchiavellian will perhaps go up to the wasteful man and shoot him in the head but a wise man will know how much force to employ in order to achieve the goal. Politics is a brunch of Ethics and Ethics a brunch of Philosophy. The "Philosopher King" is the ideal form of government in my opinion and that is why i subscribe to the third system of Ethics.
Now you brought up a good point about the "man living in a village in the middle of nowhere" and so I will express my opinion on it. Wisdom, Intelligence and knowledge do not come exclusively from books but from life experiences as well. That is why in a tribal society where education is limited, the elder members of the tribe are often the ruling class. Most primitive tribe are also subscribing to the third system of Ethics in their own way. Isn't that right?
To know is the only way to be free.
I am at heart a romantic because in reality the second system is the most most popular and frequently used in western civilization. I think that the only reason it works so well is because of the lack of knowledge on the subject by the masses ...or is it because men is egotistic by nature and wants to get his hands on as much power as he/she can. What do you think?
(Message edited by Agathon_A On 03/25/2008 13:58:55)
|
| Support us |
Just click the links below and your donations will make a difference here. |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
|
RE:The Three Systems of Ethics
(Date Posted:03/28/2008 16:51:52)
“Out Beyond Ideas of Right Doing and Wrong Doing, there is a field. I’ll meet you there.” -Rumi Are not all men, thinking men? Some are too eager to speak everything they think, some say nothing. I take the middle road so as to avoid collisions with those who cling to the right or left. I did not say that I believe we are nothing but mud. I only wonder, that is to say, like you, I simply do not know. I believe that “knowing” in the truest sense requires “Experience” and since I cannot yet be certain that I have “Experienced” death and rebirth before, I cannot “Know” that phenomenon. I am careful to distinguish “Knowing” from “Faith” no matter how strong the former may be. There is a maxim, I believe attributed to an unknown Arabian author: Man is four; (1) Show me a man who thinks he knows, but doesn’t. He is a fool. Shun him. (2) Show me a man who doesn’t know he knows. He’s asleep. Awaken him. (3) Show me a man who knows he doesn’t know. He’s eager to learn. Teach him. (4) Show me a man who knows he knows. He is wise. Follow him. I vacillate between the 2nd and 3rd. Often, I have been foolish enough to be the first, although the older I get, the less frequently it applies to me. But, rarely if ever has my awareness embraced the forth. Like Descartes, I accept that I “Know” I am, and that’s about all I know. And, I agree with your summation of the paradoxes of belief. Life is not so simple as to have ridged, clear cut rules to live by. No matter what your belief system is, there are always challenges to it to entice you to make exceptions. If I firmly believe that killing is wrong, would I idly stand by while I watch another murder my child? You know of the Jains (mostly in India) who are so fanatic on not killing that they wear masks so as not to accidentally ingest insects (and kill them), some wealthier members even hire “sweepers” to sweep the path before them so they don’t accidentally step on insects. Yet, do the “sweepers” they hire not kill the insects on their behalf? Nor do they farm in fear of killing worms or other insects in the soil. They are strict vegetarians. Yet they eat vegetables that others raise. Are they not contributing to the killing of plants or at least the worms that others killed while farming the vegetables? As you say, they live in a universe of atoms. I believe that the only serious challenge of life for all of us is CHOICE. No matter what your belief, you are always confronted with the challenge of making choices. And even if you let life choose for you, you are still making the choice of allowing it. There is no escaping the challenge of “Choice”! Philosophers should keep humor in their lives. So here’s one: Descartes was asked if cows could really jump over the moon. His reply was, “I Think Not!” And in a flash, he disappeared.
|
|
Agathon_A
|
6#
|
Time spent: 0 hours
|
RE:The Three Systems of Ethics
(Date Posted:03/29/2008 22:21:55)
T he more we "discuss" the closer our views appear to be.
Yes, philosophers should keep humor in their lives, after all "Socratic Irony" worked so well for Socrates.
I know nothing of Descartes except for a saying my father thought me a long time ago. "Cogito Ero Sum": "I Think, therefore I am" is a maxim attributed to Descartes I often find myself repeating in search of some special meaning I yet have to find. Great truth are often so simple yet I find myself embarking on an arduous journey in order to see them again for the first time ...for what they are.
"Man is the measure of all things" said Protagoras and Plato wrote an entire dialogue to disprove this theory and he had a pretty good argument. So, perhaps one day someone will write a dialogue to refute Descartes but until then I shall do my best to understand him.
Now I better get out of my head and go on a rampage against this Jains tribe you have spoken of. First let me say that I do try to be tolerant of all human being but I do have a right to get irritated when I am confronted with such level of stupidity and hypocrisies. I am saying this mostly for me than anything, I know you only mentioned them to make a good point but I cannot let this opportunity pass. Ignorance is the cause of behavioral anomalies and these Jains you have spoken of should wake up to the fact that we live in a violent universe. Millions of cells are dying every second on the human body to leave space for the birth of new ones, trees are suffocating smaller plants to spread their roots as far as they can go, stars fifty times the size of our Sun are exploding more often than we can imagine to form galaxies. In a world of atoms, lights and energy there can be no life without death. Immortality is reserved to thought and the spirit all else starts changes and stops (i.e. Birth, Growth/Life and Death). To think that there are some people unable to take any responsibility over their existence annoys me. Ok, I got it all out. Sorry but I couldn't help myself.
I am not advocate of past lives myself, not in the tradition sense at any rate. No conclusive proof of their existence has been brought to my attention thus far, perhaps one day it will but when it comes to philosophy I have no "faith". But I do not harbor any doubts in regard to the immortality of men. I don't think you were advocating the "mud theory" but since you did bring it up I gave you my two cents.
Let's start from the fact that we know that we do not know and lets realize that the best thing we can do is learn and that is what we are doing here, this is dialectic: testing what you have learned to prove or disprove its validity.
Study becomes knowledge only after experience supports what we learn. And so I have come right back where I started, the third system of Ethics is what I am here to advocate. Weather we like to admit it or not this journey toward truth was started by Gautama the Buddha and for this he should be thanked but this civilization stands on the shoulders of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle (and their Eastern counterparts: Confucius etc.), the philosophers. Macchiavelli was a great thinker born in an age of confusion and war, he is a product of his environment.
So as you can see also in our categorizing of man I fall under the third category, I know I don't know and I am here to find out.
There is no right or wrong when you measure something against infinity so ultimately everyone is right but when it comes to me the story changes, for better or for worse I'm an opinionated bastard.
(Message edited by Agathon_A On 03/29/2008 22:22:32)
|
|
|
