Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Entry 37736
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2017/10/17 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
10/17   

2005/5/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:37736 Activity:low
5/18    motd has gotten me interested in philosophy again. Mainly, I'm
        fascinated by arguments from people who have core beliefs (based
        on certain core principles, this is right and that is wrong) and
        people who have relative beliefs (you may be right from your
        perspective and I may be right from my perspective), and things
        of that nature. I'd like to know why people think certain ways,
        and how they debate, and how valid each perspective is. Is this
        philosophy? Or politics? And what's a good primer on this topic,
        preferably a URL? thx.
        \_ Read a book.
        \_ This is called ethics, or moral philosophy. Much of theology
           touches on this topic as well. Start here:
           http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics
           \- Read Plato. Either that will generate an E_TOOSHORT or you
              will learn something.
        \_ Read about the uncertainty principle. Only if you can accept
           that the universe is non-deterministic can you even begin to
           discuss whether an action is right or wrong.
           \_ Reading Plato is never bad advice.  However you might want to
              start with something like The History of Western Philosophy
              (Bertrand Russell) and then zoom in.
              \_ Plato is good, but a brief intro to Greek history would go
                 far in providing context for Plato. And if Russell is too
                 much for you, Sophie's World by Jostein Gaarder is a very
                 accessible Philosophy 101 book.
                 \- um i suppose if you want to find out what led up to
                    Socrates "problems" with the Athenian polity or to
                    fathom his portrayal by say F. Nietzsche in Twilight
                    of the Idols, some context would be helpful, but overall
                    I think you need less context than for say T. Hobbes
                    or I. Kant. Oh, and dont read the Symposium.
                    or I. Kant. Oh, and dont read the Symposium. Probably
                    best not to start with the Republic.
                 much for you, Sophie's World by Jostein Gaarder is a very
                 accessible Philosophy 101 book.
2017/10/17 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
10/17   

You may also be interested in these entries...
2013/5/7-18 [Science/Physics] UID:54674 Activity:nil
5/7     http://www.technologyreview.com/view/514581/government-lab-reveals-quantum-internet-operated-continuously-for-over-two-years
        This is totally awesome.
        "equips each node in the network with quantum transmitters–i.e.,
        lasers–but not with photon detectors which are expensive and bulky"
        \_ The next phase of the project should be stress-testing with real-
           world confidential data by NAMBLA.
	...
2012/12/4-18 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:54545 Activity:nil
12/4    "Carbon pollution up to 2 million pounds a second"
        http://www.csua.org/u/yk6 (news.yahoo.com)
        Yes, that's *a second*.
        \_ yawn.
        \_ (12/14) "AP-GfK Poll: Science doubters say world is warming"
        \_ (12/14)
	...
Cache (6431 bytes)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics
As these fields become more complex, and deal with more situations, ethic s, too, tends to become complex. But Schopenhauer stated that the first ethical principle was extremely simple and convincing: "Neminem laede; Metaethics studies the nature of ethical sentences and attitudes. This in cludes such questions as what "good" and "right" mean, whether and how w e know what is right and good, whether moral values are objective, and h ow ethical attitudes motivate us. Metaethics also investigates where our ethical principles come from, and what they mean. Do they involve more than expressions of our individual emotions? Metaethical answers to thes e questions focus on the issues of universal truths, the will of God, th e role of reason in ethical judgments, and the meaning of ethical terms themselves. Normative ethics bridges the gap between metaethics and applied ethi cs. It is the attempt to arrive at practical moral standards that tell u s right from wrong, and how to live moral lives. This may involve articu lating the good habits that we should acquire, the duties that we should follow, or the consequences of our behavior on others. this is the study of right and wrong, of obligation and permissions, of duty, of what is above and beyond the call of duty, and of what is so wrong as to be evil. For example, the following would be the sort of rules that a theory of conduct would discuss (though different theories will differ on the merit of each of these particular rules): "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"; "The right action is the action that produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number"; etiquette by their concern with finding guidelines for action that are not dependent entirely on social convention. For example, it may not be a breach of etiquette to fail to give money to help those in poverty, but it could still be a failure to act morally. Suppose we have decided that certain things are intrinsically good, or are more valuable than other things that are also intrinsically good. Given this, the next big question is what would this imply about how we should live our lives? The theory of value also asks: What sorts of things are good? Is it intrinsically good for beautiful objects to exist? It may literally define "good" and "bad" for a community or society. Criticism: Theory of value is not a part of normative ethics, though normative ethics presupposes some theory of value. For example, there are aethetic values which may be amoral, ie, neutral in regard to conduct. arbitration in fact no comm on assumptions of all participants so the ability to formulate the que stions are prior to rights balancing. But not all questions studied in applied ethics concern public policy. T he ability to make these ethical judgements is prior to any etiquette. There are several sub-branches of applied ethics examining the ethical pr oblems of different professions, such as business ethics, medical ethics , engineering ethics and legal ethics, while technology assessment and e nvironmental assessment study the effects and implications of new techno logies or projects on nature and society. ethical codes of the professions, and define their common responsib ility to the public, eg to preserve its natural capital, or to obey so me social expectations of honest dealings and disclosure. environmental assessment study the effects and implications of new technologies or projects on nature and society. Each branch characterizes common issues and problems that may arise, and define their common responsibility to the public, eg to preserve its natural capital, or to obey some social expectations of honest dealings and disclosure. Almost all American states have tried to discourage dishon est practices by their public employees and elected officials by establi shing an Ethics Commission for their state. political virtues" were in fact necessary in all matters where human morality and interests were destined to clash. This and other views of modern universals is dealt with below under Glob al Ethics. The lines of distinction between metaethics, normative ethics, and applie d ethics are often blurry. abortion is an applied ethical topic since it involves a specific type of controversia l behavior. But it also depends on more general normative principles, su ch as the right of self-rule and the right to life, which are litmus tes ts for determining the morality of that procedure. The issue also rests on metaethical issues such as, "where do rights come from?" etiquette which tend to be less rigorous an d more situational. Some consider etiquette a simple negative ethics, ie where can one evade an uncomfortable truth without doing wrong? Ru shworth Kidder that ethics itself is a matter of balancing "right versus right", ie putting priorities on two things that are both right, but which must be traded off carefully in each situation. This view many consider to have potential to reform ethics as a practice, but it is not as widely held as the 'aesthetic' or 'common sense' views listed above. First, we need to define an ethical sentence, also called a normative sta tement. An ethical sentence is one that is used to make either a positiv e or a negative (moral) evaluation of something. Ethical sentences use w ords such as "good," "bad," "right," "wrong," "moral," "immoral," and so on. In contrast, a non-ethical sentence would be a sentence that does not ser ve to (morally) evaluate something. Examples would include: * "Someone took the stereo out of my car." Mores, from which morality is derived, meant social rules or e tiquette or inhibitions from the society. In modern times, these meaning s are often somewhat reversed, with ethics being the "science" and moral s referring to one's conduct and character. But it is significant that t he origins of the words reflect the tension between an inner-driven (cha racter) and an outer-driven (conduct) view of what constitutes morality. Carol Gilligan developed theories which are based on the idea that moral behaviour is made possible by moral reasoning. Their theories subdivided moral reason ing into so-called stages, which refer to the set of principles or metho ds that a person uses for ethical judgement. edit Major doctrines of ethics Philosophers have developed a number of competing systems to explain how to choose what is best for both the individual and for society.