2
   

Good Samaritan

 
 
coberst
 
Reply Fri 21 Oct, 2005 05:09 am
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 972 • Replies: 8
No top replies

 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Oct, 2005 08:12 am
Re: Good Samaritan
I have no idea what you're trying to say here, coberst, so instead I'll focus on one statement you made:

coberst wrote:
Rawls assumes that we inherently agree on what constitutes moral behavior.

Where did he say that? As I understand Rawls, he says that we can come to an agreement on morality based upon the principles of justice as fairness, not that we already agree on what constitutes morality. Have you found some writing in which Rawls says otherwise?
0 Replies
 
coberst
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Oct, 2005 08:20 am
Re: Good Samaritan
joefromchicago wrote:
I have no idea what you're trying to say here, coberst, so instead I'll focus on one statement you made:

coberst wrote:
Rawls assumes that we inherently agree on what constitutes moral behavior.

Where did he say that? As I understand Rawls, he says that we can come to an agreement on morality based upon the principles of justice as fairness, not that we already agree on what constitutes morality. Have you found some writing in which Rawls says otherwise?


Rawls speaks of using a "veil of ignorance" while tryin to ascertain the principles of justice. This "veil of ignorance" to be effective must assume that we can find within us the urge to moral action if we do not allow our bias to distort our consideration. He is essentially saying that morality (justice as fairness) is given to humans at birth by our DNA.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Oct, 2005 11:04 am
Re: Good Samaritan
coberst wrote:
Rawls speaks of using a "veil of ignorance" while tryin to ascertain the principles of justice. This "veil of ignorance" to be effective must assume that we can find within us the urge to moral action if we do not allow our bias to distort our consideration. He is essentially saying that morality (justice as fairness) is given to humans at birth by our DNA.

True, Rawls uses the "veil of ignorance" in his attempt to ascertain the principles of justice as fairness, but the veil is purely a heuristic device. Ultimately, for Rawls, morality rests on an innate sense of self-interest (i.e. in setting up the rules of society, I should act as if I were disadvantaged, so that the rules will not hurt me in the event that I am disadvantaged), not on any innate sense of fairness or morality.
0 Replies
 
Nietzsche
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Oct, 2005 09:58 pm
Conservatives represent religious morality; liberals, secular morality. That's always been my view, anyway.
0 Replies
 
Ray
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Oct, 2005 12:04 am
It is funny that classical liberalism had an extreme laissez-faire economic idea, but that has now changed (It had changed in Britain when the Liberals introduced their welfare ideas). It seems like the Liberals and the Conservatives switched economic ideology, which is probably a good thing.

I question Adam Smith's concept of the invisible hand. It seemed to me that he thinks that most, if not all, people will always think with a degree of sympathy, which is not always true, and which is complicated by power disparity.

I agree with Nietzche (the poster) to an extent about the Conservatives' and Liberal's moral ideology, except that I would replace "religious morality" to "tradition based morality." Cheers.
0 Replies
 
Nietzsche
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Oct, 2005 12:38 am
Agreed. Better choice of words.
0 Replies
 
Sleeper World
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2005 01:43 am
Re: Good Samaritan
coberst wrote:


Not quite. Sympathy is one of the emotional responses to misfortune however it's also been discovered that the human brain automatically reacts with pleasure to witnessing pain that is seen as "deserved". Your average person experiences both reactions with the possibility of one overwhelming the other.

The ratio between these two impulses depends on the personality of the individual in question.
0 Replies
 
coberst
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2005 05:14 am
Re: Good Samaritan
Sleeper World wrote:
coberst wrote:


Not quite. Sympathy is one of the emotional responses to misfortune however it's also been discovered that the human brain automatically reacts with pleasure to witnessing pain that is seen as "deserved". Your average person experiences both reactions with the possibility of one overwhelming the other.

The ratio between these two impulses depends on the personality of the individual in question.


I suspect you are correct. Even in a face-to-face encounter our reaction may be based on ideology. I tend to suspect this however. If my sympathy reaction is part of our DNA then our first response would be sympathy followed by 'just desserts' response after time to think.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Good Samaritan
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/18/2022 at 11:17:42