Philosophy, ethics, and your thoughts

[Eliaures]

I listened to a podcast of a discussion of philosophy and ethics from NPR: Talk of the Nation (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18952113) which stipulated that ethics were situational. Studies were cited that show that peoples reactions to moral challenges are based upon whether the folks around them respond, the mood they're in (a person in front of a bakery is more inclined to help someone in distress than one in front of a dry goods store), whether they are in a hurry, whether there are loud noises present, etc. What do you think? Are our morals and ethics hard wired or do they change with the moment? There was also a discussion as to whether philosophy was more than just armchair thinking and how does it compare with "hard science". What are your thoughts about this?

In my personal experience, I've found that my ethics are situational. I've done things in a group that I wouldn't think of doing without that impetus. I was quite a vandal as a teen and the things I did with my friends, such as mailboxing, wouldn't even occur to me if I were setting out to amuse myself. I feel guilt over what I did, but the consequences of my actions also did not occur to me while I was with my friends.

Philosophy to me is just your or some intellectuals view of life and living life. We are all philosophers whether we subscribe to that notion or not because we all have made observations and made opinion from those observations about the world around us. Often I think philosophy is over intellectualized and the folks that have thought the most about it and write books about it, get the title philosopher. I do like the study of philosophy, because it's interesting to have that "George Carlin" moment and say "Hey! Me too!" or when something I read provokes new thought.

[dteowner]

I would expect very few people have truly rigid ethics, and I'd bet those few wouldn't be very pleasant to be around.

I enjoy philosophy "as a hobbyist", ie debating man's fundamental motives among friends, but I'd tend to lump professional, dedicated philosophy that postulates real answers into the "idle quackery" pile.

Interesting topic.

[Eliaures]

I enjoy philosophy "as a hobbyist", ie debating man's fundamental motives among friends, but I'd tend to lump professional, dedicated philosophy that postulates real answers into the "idle quackery" pile.

Oh, funny! I agree with you to an extent, those are the philosophers I tend to discount. My favorite philosophy is Zen, which most times simply states observations and rarely makes any of its postulates, law. Most times they give you something to think about, and then you do with it what you will.

[woges]

I'm kind of a fan of the golden mean myself. I have my own ethics, probably based mostly on the works of Aristotle, but I don't really care if other people have a different code to live by.

[woges]

I tend to stick by what I believe to be right and never let any "group" affect my stance. It all depends on what's at stake and what are your values. I tend to value my life so if my ethics put this at risk for little or no gain I'd have to think about it. So unless you have no self preservation your ethics need to be situational in some degree.

[JemyM]

Moral behavior and ethics, I think, are human words placed on what we seem as the right cause of action or behavior. What's right and wrong is usually up to the person although we have some emotions which we find unpleasent and whatever causes them is considered bad.

The more experience you have with your world the more you have within you to distinguish what leads to the best long term consequences.

What is the goal and core function of ethics? Well, I personally believe that the core function of ethics is to create a functional society. Without ethics a society cannot work. What's considered to be proper ethics is pretty much decided by the society although the effectiveness of current societies around the world can be debated.

Personally I believe that rules are meant for kids. They are meant to quickly integrate a new member to society. Adult ethics, however, needs knowledge, experience and a wish to improve his or her society. The wish to improve his or her society is easier to give to a child than an adult however.

[Eliaures]

Personally I believe that rules are meant for kids. They are meant to quickly integrate a new member to society. Adult ethics, however, needs knowledge, experience and a wish to improve his or her society. The wish to improve his or her society is easier to give to a child than an adult however.

Ooh, an anarchist! I kid obviously. Ethics seems to be constantly shifting and changes with internal and external influences. Money seems to be a large factor in whether someone will act for the best interest of the collective or for themselves. I would hazard to say that most of us think money has had a poor influence on professional sports. I am a Formula One fan, and I tend to think that the huge money in that sport has made it more spectacle and less sport. Those that follow American baseball would probably blame money for a lot of the current brouhaha over performance enhancing drugs. I won't say that cheating or unethical behavior is a new influence upon sports, i.e. the famous Black Socks of 1918, but I think it is probably more acceptable now.

[JemyM]

Ooh, an anarchist! I kid obviously. Ethics seems to be constantly shifting and changes with internal and external influences. Money seems to be a large factor in whether someone will act for the best interest of the collective or for themselves. I would hazard to say that most of us think money has had a poor influence on professional sports. I am a Formula One fan, and I tend to think that the huge money in that sport has made it more spectacle and less sport. Those that follow American baseball would probably blame money for a lot of the current brouhaha over performance enhancing drugs. I won't say that cheating or unethical behavior is a new influence upon sports, i.e. the famous Black Socks of 1918, but I think it is probably more acceptable now.

No, rather someone who read too much Aristotle. An elder have to face issues that is not in the book and the only way for them to properly deal with their issues is through knowledge and experience. They are usually integrated as a child already and have hopefully learned not only to follow the rules but to see why the rules are in place. They are then able to argue against or enhance the rules, preferably using the proper channels to do so.

[mudsling3]

By no means a religious one. this passage sheds some light on nature of States and War.

A hundred years later they were begging the wise man, Samuel, "Now make us a king to judge us, like all the other nations." The thing displeased Samuel, and he told them in plain terms what they were asking for: "This shall be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen, and some shall run before his chariots. And he will appoint him captains over thousands and captains over fifties, and will set them to ear his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war. "And he will take your fields, and your olive yards, even the
best of them, and he will take the tenth of your seed and of your vineyards, and he will take the tenth of your men servantsand your maid servants, and your goodliest young men, and put them to his work. "And ye shall cry out in that day, because of this King which ye shall have chosen." Here is a precise statement of the source of any Government's power, and of the effects of any Government's attempt to control human energy—the taking-away of energy from production, the waste of energy in bureaucracy and war.

For those who interested, read the whole book here http://www.mises.org/books/discovery.pdf

[Corwin]

Situational ethics means NO ethics as far as I'm concerned!! You either have a core set of ethical beliefs ( whatever they may be, Christian, Zen, Aristotle, Freud, Bob Dylan.....etc, etc. ) These frame your life, your reactions and responses to situations. I respect people who have these beliefs, even if I totally disagree with them. A person who changes their actions based on the situation has therefore, no ethical core.

Let's say for instance I believe 'Thou Shall Not Steal'. Just because I know I can get away with stealing in a particular SITUATION doesn't make stealing OK, and if I do it, what does that say about my real ethics? Correct, I have none!!

Ethics are what you have/are when NO-ONE is there to see you!!

[JemyM]

Do we really not steal because we have made a rule to ourselves to not steal?

I do not steal because I respect other people and they might want to keep their posessions. I also feel it's good to know what I have so I prefer to keep my own stuff. It makes it easier to plan my day. When I was a young boy however, I could not understand consequences. I took stuff here and there and I did not know why people got angry at me for doing so. Back then I needed someone to tell me that I should not take others stuff because they get angry and it's called stealing.

It's not so much following rules to not steal, but rather accepting others wishes so they do not get angry on you.

Here (http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm) are the Golden Rule in 21 religions and some philosophies. It's really the most basic piece of ethics of them all.

[Corwin]

JM, you missed my point. I only used stealing as a simple example of why I don't believe in situational ethics!!

[Dyne]

I believe ethics are totally situational. The well-trodden question of "if you and your family were starving and you had no recourse but to steal to survive, would you?" always holds true.

On philosophy, I never liked Eastern philosophy, always preferred Western. Too much fluff and truism in Lao Tzu, Confucious and the like; rather than firm analytical logic.

I think the negative public perception of philosophy, as a load of old pointless guff and navel gazing, is down to the popularity or prominence of continental philosophy over analytical philosophy. I think they're both valid schools of thought with their own pluses and minuses.
I love the work of the sceptic movement, Descartes and all that. The brilliance of "I think, therefore I am" being the absolute only thing you can trust in...only to realise that affirmation fails Descartes' own rigid scepticism, and rests on a presupposition itself. It's the failures and criticisms of theories that're great, as much as the perceieved truth of them.
Existentialism and Humanism, On Liberty, fascinating books that everyone should try at least once. Quite slim as well, not at all as intimidating as Leviathan, Republic etc.

[woges]

Your ethics are changed by outside influence though Corwin. It's not always so simple to draw the ethical line when there is more at stake than words. If a man was going to shoot his wife would it then be ethical to steal his gun and stop that? You can certainly have a general ethos as a guild line but there will always be circumstances when that will be tested.

[Squeek]

I think there's too much cruelty in the world. I think there are some people who live their entire lives without ever being cruel and that they really ought to be the ones in charge.

[Corwin]

If my ethics change according to the situation, then I don't have any ethics to live by, I just do what seems right at the time. While that's a valid philosophical position, it's certainly not traditional ethics and it could be used to justify almost anything. 'I think the Jews are undermining my war effort, so in this situation, I'd better exterminate them all.' ( Possible thoughts of one A. Hitler. )

Extreme, YES. However, situational ethics can easily lead to extremism and be used as a justification for it. I also object to SE being established as the basis for all ethics, which was an early statement from the OP. I certainly challenge that presumption on both philosophical and logical grounds!!

[JemyM]

You are making a mistake with your example Corwin. Situational ethics means looking at the consequences of your actions. To do so you need to know what you are doing. Clearly Hitler was consumed by his idea of doing the right thing and did not care about history nor the warning signs. We know that the loss of even a single person might lead to devastating consequences so kill someone is rarely a good idea. Today, based on what we know, there's simply no way to motivate why a knowledgeable person might suggest that genocide might solve problems. We (or at least most of us) also know that going to war does not solve anything because we know what consequences it bring.

Anyone who gives the basic rules a few moments will find that it's extremely different to create permanent rules that works. The problem with "you shall not steal or murder" is to define "what's stealing?" and "what's murder?". Some want to extend stealing to piracy and breaking copyright and that's the result of a heated debate. Some considers killing unborn babies to be murder, also the result of heated debate.

Consider the rule "you shall not lie". You can probably easy imagine a situation in which you should not just lie, it would be ethically wrong to not lie.

Furthermore, sometimes you have conflicting ethics in which you might have to lie or steal to save the life of a person. When that's the case you break the rule and hope to find forgiveness later.

When the legal system was new it never considered that things were different based on situation and motives. It did not work very well. Death penalty was tossed out almost regardless what had happened and sometimes actions that actually caused good things were punished more harshly than actions that had very negative consequences.

This is why a rule such as the Golden Rule or the rule "do good" is better than the defined ones. Such rules makes you think, and thinking on what's right and what's wrong is more important than rules.

[ffbj]

There is a rather interesting Zen story that relates:

Once a vinaya master, (a master in the rules of conduct), visited a monastery. As it was dark he could not see where he was walking. As he approached the monastery he heard the croaking frogs and began stepping on and crushing what he thought were frogs eggs. They was a pop everytime he stepped on one and they were gooey and slimy. Later that night, in a dream, the frog king came to him and demanded retribution for all the frogs he had killed. The master woke up in a cold sweet the next morning and went out side. Strewn around the ground were the beetle nuts he had crushed, supposing them to be frogs eggs, in his walk the night before.

On a related note. A modern master once advised on of his students to get an abortion. When asked about this later his response was: "I may burn in hell for this, but I thought it was the right thing to do for this young woman."
The point being that considering the retribution or reward we receive for a particular action, or a rule (not to take life), should not be the sole criteria for our decisions.

[KazikluBey]

If my ethics change according to the situation, then I don't have any ethics to live by, I just do what seems right at the time. While that's a valid philosophical position, it's certainly not traditional ethics and it could be used to justify almost anything. 'I think the Jews are undermining my war effort, so in this situation, I'd better exterminate them all.' ( Possible thoughts of one A. Hitler. )
Any ethical system could be used to justify just about anything. It's all about the values/rules/virtues/etc you put into it.

Extreme, YES. However, situational ethics can easily lead to extremism and be used as a justification for it. I also object to SE being established as the basis for all ethics, which was an early statement from the OP. I certainly challenge that presumption on both philosophical and logical grounds!!
Extremism is something I associate more with a stringently adhered to ethical system than to the context sensitive swapping of ethical systems that Eliaures is talking about.

You are making a mistake with your example Corwin. Situational ethics means looking at the consequences of your actions.
Actually, that's not the kind of ethics discussed by Eliaures to which Corwin responded.

[HiddenX]

I like these definitions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics):

Ethics (via Latin ethica from the Ancient Greek ἠθική [φιλοσοφία] "moral philosophy", from the adjective of ἤθος ēthos "custom, habit"), a major branch of philosophy, encompasses right conduct and good life. It is significantly broader than the common conception of analyzing right and wrong. A central aspect of ethics is "the good life", the life worth living or life that is satisfying, which is held by many philosophers to be more important than moral conduct. The major problem is the discovery of the summum bonum, the greatest good.

Morals
Ethics and morals are respectively akin to theory and practice. Ethics denotes the theory of right action and the greater good, while morals indicate their practice. "Moral" has a dual meaning. The first indicates a person's comprehension of morality and his capacity to put it into practice. In this meaning, the antonym is "amoral", indicating an inability to distinguish between right and wrong. The second denotes the active practice of those values. In this sense, the antonym is "immoral", referring to actions that violate ethical principles.

Personal ethics signifies a moral code applicable to individuals, while social ethics means moral theory applied to groups. Social ethics can be synonymous with social and political philosophy, in as much as it is the foundation of a good society or state.

Ethics is not limited to specific acts and defined moral codes, but encompasses the whole of moral ideals and behaviors, a person's philosophy of life (or Weltanschauung).


My opinion:
Doing a "wrong" action (against your ethic-system) is only situational ethics if
you are thinking the action is "right" at this moment (=not feeling guilty).

If you're still thinking that you're doing something "wrong" your ethics system hasn't changed a bit.

Situational ethics are a contradiction in itself. Ethics is something you have to learn over a long time, ethics can change in life, but not from situation to situation.

[Eliaures]

Thank you HiddenX. I was having a problem with the concepts of morals and ethics and was struggling with the difference.

What prompted the start of this thread was that some studies were done that found that people would react differently when confronted with those in need depending upon the situation. Seminary students were told that they were late, that they should be in a hurry, and with this suggestion would not stop to help a person in need. People in front of a bakery were more inclined to help than those in front of a dry goods store, supposing that you are more willing to help if you are in a good mood. Maybe this is more situational morality as opposed to situational ethics?

[Eliaures]

A modern master once advised on of his students to get an abortion. When asked about this later his response was: "I may burn in hell for this, but I thought it was the right thing to do for this young woman."
The point being that considering the retribution or reward we receive for a particular action, or a rule (not to take life), should not be the sole criteria for our decisions.

That's one of my problems with Christianity. I'm no expert, so there may be other reasons that Christians uphold their ideas of morality, but it seems like to me that it's the threat of eternal damnation that is the impetus to live a moral life. I sometimes wonder why most people maintain their sense of right and wrong. Is it because of self actualization; the fear of what other will think; the fear of punishment? Like most things involving humanity, it's probably complex and is a combination of factors.

[Corwin]

Fear of burning in Hell, is ONE reason why SOME people are Christians. For me, living correctly is more important and I find the Christian life to be the best following the 2 Great commandments. The second is the one more applicable here:- Love your neighbour as yourself. It's sometimes rendered Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Either way, That is the CORE of my ethics.

[HiddenX]

Love your neighbour as yourself. It's sometimes rendered Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Either way, That is the CORE of my ethics.
I quite agree - and this leads to another theory:

Real dangerous people are hating themselves and perhaps their current situation in life.

[Squeek]

...living correctly is more important....That's it, exactly. The value of ethics and morals is being challenged today like never before, IMO. And the Internet is working to confront and agitate that trend.

One could expect that what's best for living would be taught in schools, printed in newspapers or consistently agreed upon on worldwide forums. It's not, and that's a bizzarre fact of life.

Today's superstar values are education, science and knowledge. But haven't the wisest people who've ever lived sometimes balked at knowledge? Haven't they, in fact, often mocked the value of it?

This may all be headed in a different direction than the one we think.

The future will bring shocking and humbling realizations about our understanding of ourselves, IMO. Superstar status of tomorrow will belong more to ethics and morals than science and education. That's the real direction of progress.

[JemyM]

The religions all offer a purpose with a better death as reward.

Most societies have a cultural agreement of the purpose of life. Nations often have different goals. In the US there is the "American Dream" which basicly means getting successful. In Sweden it's usually refered to as "Villa, Volvo, Vovve" which translated means "Having a Villa, a Volvo and a Dog".

In Philosophy you have existentialism which is about living an "authentic life".

Many cultures still fail to sell a sense of purpose though. Most of them focus on the individual rather than goals meant to help mankind. I do not believe this is beneficial to us as a species. The future of mankind and this planet really should be the highest value told to kids. Doing your part for mankind is important, no matter how small it is. If you leave blood, if you donate money to the poor, if you focus on becoming the prophet of a new religion or focus on becoming the next Einstein you are doing something with your life.

The pleasure-driven life is a direct enemy to the purpose-driven life.

[Squeek]

The religions all offer a purpose with a better death as reward.That's what some religions are all about, but shouldn't that be discussed in the other thread?

[Corwin]

JM, you refer to life as being 'driven'. That to me conjures up an image of cattle being driven to slaughter!! How about life being LEAD by principles and ethics?

[Eliaures]

The pleasure-driven life is a direct enemy to the purpose-driven life.

Oh! Now a Buddhist! :) I've studied Zen and Buddhism a bit, and basically what you stated above is what Buddhism proposes. Christmas Humphreys summarized Buddhist precepts for Western eyes with his 12 Principles of Buddhism. It seems to me that existentialists studied Buddhism because much of what they say holds to Buddhist principles.

1. Self salvation is for any man the immediate task. If a man lay wounded by a poisoned arrow he would not delay extraction by demanding details of the man who shot it or the length and make of the arrow. There will be time for ever-increasing understanding of the Teaching during the treading of the Way. Meanwhile, begin now by facing life as it is, learning always by direct and personal experience.

2. The first fact of existence is the law of change or impermanence. All that exists, from a mole to a mountain, from a thought to an empire, passes through the same cycle of existence; birth, growth, decay and death. Life alone is continuous, ever seeking self-expression in new forms. “Life is a bridge; therefore build no house on it.” Life is a process of flow, and he who clings to any form, however splendid, will suffer by resisting the flow.

3. The law of change applies equally to the “soul”. There is no principle in an individual which is immortal and unchanging. Only the “Namelessness”, the Ultimate Reality, is beyond change, and all forms of life, including man, are manifestations of this Reality. No one owns the life which flows in him any more than the electric light bulb owns the current which gives it light.

4. The universe is the expression of law. All effects have causes, and man’s soul or character is the sum total of his previous thoughts and acts. Karma, meaning action-reaction, governs all existence, and man is the sole creator of his circumstances, and his reaction to them, his future condition and his final destiny. By right thought and action he can gradually purify his inner nature, and so by self-realization attain in time liberation from rebirth. The process covers great periods of time, involving life after life on earth, but ultimately every form of life will reach enlightenment.

5. Life is one and indivisible, though its ever-changing forms are innumerable and perishable. There is, in truth, no death, though every form must die. From an understanding of life’s unity arises compassion, a sense of identity with the life in other forms. Compassion is described as the “Law of laws-eternal harmony”, and he who breaks this harmony of life will suffer accordingly and delay his own enlightenment.

6. Life being One, the interests of the part should be those of the whole. In his ignorance man thinks he can successfully strive for his own interests, and his wrongly-directed energy of selfishness produces its cause. The Buddha taught four Noble Truths:

a) The omnipresence of suffering;

b) its cause, wrongly-directed desire;

c) its cure, the removal of the cause; and

d) the Noble Eightfold Path of self-development which leads to the end of suffering.

7. The Eightfold Path consists of: (1)Right Views or preliminary understanding, (2) Right Aims or Motives, (3) Right Speech, (4) Right Acts, (5) Right Livelihood, (6) Right Effort, (7) Right Concentration or mind-development, and, finally, (8) Right Samadhi, leading to full Enlightenment. As Buddhism is a way of living, not merely a theory of life, the treading of this Path is essential to self-deliverance. “Cease to do evil, learn to do good, cleanse your own heart: this is the Teaching of the Buddhas”.

8. Reality is incomprehensible, and a God with attributes is not the final Reality. But the Buddha, a human being, became the All-Enlightened One, and the purpose of life is the attainment of Enlightenment. This state of consciousness, Nirvana, the extinction of the limitations of selfhood, is attainable on earth. All men and all other forms of life contain the potentiality of Enlightenment, and the purpose therefore consists in becoming what you are: “Look within; thou art Buddha”.

9. From potential to actual Enlightenment there lies the Middle Way, the Eightfold Path from desire to peace”, a process of self-development between the “opposites”, avoiding all extremes. The Buddha trod this Way to the end, and the only faith required in Buddhism is the reasonable belief that where a Guide has trodden its is worth our while to tread. The Way must be trodden by the whole man, nor merely the best of him, and heart and mind must be developed equally. The Buddha was the All-Compassionate as well as the All-Enlightened One.

10. Buddhism lays great stress on the need of inward concentration and meditation, which leads in time to the development of the inner spiritual faculties. The subjective life is as important as the daily round, and periods of quietude for inner activity are essential for a balanced life. The Buddhist should at all times be “mindful and self-possessed”, refraining from mental and emotional attachment to “the passing show”. This increasingly watchful attitude to circumstances, which he knows to be his own creation, helps him to keep his reaction to it always under control.

11. The Buddha said: “Work out your own salvation with diligence”. Buddhism knows no authority for truth save the intuition of the individual, and that is authority for himself alone. Each man suffers the consequences of his own acts, and learns thereby, while helping his fellow man to the same deliverance; nor will prayer to the Buddha or to any God prevent an effect following its cause. Buddhist monks are teachers and examplars, and in no sense intermediaries between Reality and the individual. The utmost tolerance is practiced towards all other religions and philosophies, for no man has the right to interfere in his neighbor’s journey to the Goal.

12. Buddhism is neither pessimistic or “escapist”, nor does it deny the existence of God or soul, though it places its own meaning on these terms. It is, on the contrary, a system of thought, a religion, a spiritual science and a way of life, which is reasonable, practical and all embracing. For over two thousand years it has satisfied the spiritual needs of nearly one-third of mankind. It appeals to the West because it has no dogmas, satisfies the reason and the heart alike, insists on self-reliance coupled with tolerance for other points of view, embraces science, religion, philosophy, psychology, ethics and art, and points to man alone as the creator of his present life and sole designer of his destiny.

That's what some religions are all about, but shouldn't that be discussed in the other thread?
Religion and philosophy intertwine and often are one in the same especially if you consider Buddhism. Once I started studying Buddhism, I have considered it more philosophy than religion, but I bet if you ask most people, they would call it one of the world's great religions.

[mudsling3]

From John Galt: "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I03sQzS-pM8&feature=related

[Prime Junta]

A bit LTTP, what with Rome and all (back in one piece).

I'm a policy utilitarian. That means that the basic imperatives, which I accept on faith and without argument, go something like this:

(1) An ethical imperative should only be considered binding if, if it were universally applied, it produces (a) less misery and (b) more happiness than competing ethical imperatives.

(2) Argument and experience are valid tools for testing whether a proposed ethical imperative is consistent with principle (1).

The practical upshot is that I behave more or less like any reasonably law-abiding, reasonably well-meaning individual. The philosophical underpinnings are really only useful if I hit an ethical dilemma -- and even so, I'm by no means certain that my reasoning isn't just a fancy rationalization of whatever it was I would have done anyway.

[woges]

But Rome is hardly Imperium Romanum any more, and something as simple as less misery and more happiness is hardly an ethos. It's what is happiness and misery that is philosophy. Even then the noun happiness can be enjoyed on mass by people I would consider misguided. People can enjoy the most crudest of things.

[Prime Junta]

But Rome is hardly Imperium Romanum any more, and something as simple as less misery and more happiness is hardly an ethos. It's what is happiness and misery that is philosophy. Even then the noun happiness can be enjoyed on mass by people I would consider misguided. People can enjoy the most crudest of things.

Misery and happiness are hard to define exactly, but that doesn't mean they're useless. That just means that when we get down to the concrete level -- that is, considering a specific proposed ethical imperative -- we'll look at its immediate effects, and then discuss whether those immediate effects contribute to happiness or misery. Much of the time, there won't even be a huge amount of disagreement at this level -- for example, few people would argue that being forcefully deprived of a freedom or a material good in itself leads to greater happiness.

("Rome" just meant that I'm back from there; I mentioned it on another thread on this forum. This has nothing to do with Roman ethics; if anything, this is derived from Kant and Popper.)

[woges]

I never said that they're useless, it's just that, Philosophy can't be defined so simply. Which I'm sure you know and proved with your post. You can base the core of your ethics on simple statements but in the end people and life are more complex. I'm sure the sadists know this.

[Prime Junta]

I never said that they're useless, it's just that, Philosophy can't be defined so simply. Which I'm sure you know and proved with your post. You can base the core of your ethics on simple statements but in the end people and life are more complex. I'm sure the sadists know this.

That's what I attempted to suggest by stating that the upshot is that I behave more or less like everybody else.

[woges]

Behaving isn't thinking like everybody else though - that's another side of wisdom.

[ffbj]

Eliaures: Have you read 'The Heart of Perfect Wisdom Sutra?'

HEART OF GREAT PERFECT WISDOM SUTRA

Avalokiteshvara Bodhisattva, when deeply practicing prajna paramita,clearly saw that all five aggregates are empty and thus relieved all suffering. Shariputra, form does not differ from emptiness, emptiness does not differ from form.

Form itself is emptiness, emptiness itself form. Sensations, perceptions, formations, and consciousness are also like this. Shariputra, all dharmas are marked by emptiness; they neither arise nor cease, are neither defiled nor pure, neither increase nor decrease. Therefore, given emptiness, there are no forms, sensations, perceptions, formations, or consciousness; no eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, or mind; no sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touch, or objects of mind; no realm of sight, and so forth, down to no realm of mind consciousness. There is neither ignorance nor extinction of ignorance, and so forth, down to neither old age and death, nor extinction of old age and death; no suffering, no cause, no cessation, no path; no knowledge and no attainment. With nothing to attain, a bodhisattva relies on prajna paramita, and thus the mind is without hindrance. Without hindrance, there is no fear. Far beyond all inverted views, one realizes nirvana. All buddhas of past, present, and future rely on prajna paramita and thereby attain unsurpassed, complete, perfect enlightenment. Therefore, know the prajna paramita as the great miraculous mantra, the great bright mantra, the supreme mantra, the incomparable mantra, which removes all suffering and is true, not false. Therefore we proclaim the prajna paramita mantra, the mantra that says: "Gate Gate Paragate Parasamgate Bodhi Svaha." (Gone, Gone, Gone Beyond, the other shore reached, Enlightenment Hail!).

[Prime Junta]

Behaving isn't thinking like everybody else though - that's another side of wisdom.

Quite. -- Anyway, I was just providing a definition of policy utilitarianism, not a full discussion of it.

[Eliaures]

Eliaures: Have you read 'The Heart of Perfect Wisdom Sutra?'

I had not read that specific sutra. I have read similar though. I think every book on Buddhism I've read does go over that which was stated in "The Heart of Perfect Wisdom". I still enjoyed reading that sutra though. Thank you.