|
OwlFancier posted:What do you propose is the basis for caring about the immaterial intent of the actor over the effects of their actions? But nobody is disputing the merit of the actions and effects. We're all happy to call those good. If someone wants to be thought virtuous for doing them, though, they have to have had a virtuous motive in doing them (e.g. benevolence), because that is what virtuous means. One does not have to care more about virtue than results to see that they are different things.
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 07:18 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If someone cares about virtue then I would suggest they've got some aspect of their worldview rather firmly planted in spiritualism. Virtuous is what 'good' usually means, when it is used of people. I don't know why you think spiritualism has to be involved. Are you actually denying that people have intentions at all?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:They have intentions but they are immaterial beyond the degree to which they effect a particular outcome. The number three is 'literally immaterial', but I'm not going to chuck arithmetic out of the window. We are social beings who have to co-operate with others. Because of this their intentions do matter a lot, to all of us. We need to be able to predict people's actions to some extent, and therefore it matters whether someone did a good action in the past because they wanted to, or just because they were frightened into it. We also wish to encourage good actions, and persuading others to want the good - i.e. to be benevolent, a virtue - is an obvious first step.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:the context of the initial question was whether or not someone who does materially good things is a good person or not, based on their method of arriving at those actions. Yes, and since 'good' when applied to people means virtuous, having a virtue, such as benevolence or generosity or courage, the intent matters. This is completely consistent with materialism, unless you want to claim that their intentions arise from something other than their brains. It would be different if we were talking about 'beneficial'. Good people can sometimes have terrible effects.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It really doesn't mean that unless you subscribe to virtue ethics. Yes it does. Here is just one example of someone equating altruism with being good, for example.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:How does one embrace moral absolutism without the presence of a higher authority? Just how would the presence of a powerful entity make any difference to morality, unless you already have 'obey powerful beings' as a root moral conviction?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2017 13:01
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:it definitely seems like there is an extremely high correlation between countries being less religious and leaning much father left. Maybe, for some meanings of 'left', at any rate. quote:But it does definitely seem like decreasing religiosity leads to more leftism. No. There is nothing in your post that implies causation. I am sure you know that correlation doesn't.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 14:09
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:I'm not saying that religion is the sole cause of these problems, but that it hurts more than it helps. When the entire population of a region is highly religious, it is almost always oppressive. Did you seriously look at all the 95+% countries and not see an alarming trend? No. Correlation does not imply causation, and you cannot make it imply causation by saying you're sure there are other causes as well, or calling it a catalyst instead. You have provided no evidence at all that religion increases conservatism, rather than (for example) the other way round, or them both being caused by something else. It's surely not even difficult to imagine why people who live in reactionary hellholes might find comfort in religion, nor that it might be easier to break away from ancestral beliefs if you already live in a place with economic security and a decent education.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 07:18 |
|
|
RasperFat posted:Here's an academic study Thank you, this is something - though the article is about participation rather than belief, and specifically argues for a more complicated and two-way story of causation than the one you were offering. For what it's worth I don't have any problem imagining that religion some times, in some circumstances, increases conservatism. The fact that it sometimes has the opposite effect ought to make us wary of missionary atheism, though, even if one thought missionary atheism would succeed in spreading atheism rather than a dislike of atheists. The other article again only shows correlations, which I didn't dispute.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2017 00:21
|
|