1PolarBear wrote:And again I am asking, what does it has to do with posturing? All it says is people make choices according to emotions and reason, which anybody that is not an ideologue knows already. The question was what is the reason for posturing? not how posturing happens.
In the case of people making assumptions about where I stand, why should I care ? It's on them. And if I require to take a stance on something, why don't I simply state what I think and feel ? Why posturing at all ?
The ends and the means are two different causes. If you do things because of the means, it is the same as saying you do things because you can. It's not pathetic, just immoral or pointless at best. You need at least a goal to do things, and it says so in the article you posted. That goal is a principle. Your experience is one of complete entitlement. I have a car, I drive it if I feel like it. I have a nuke, so I will use it, because I thought about it, and I feel like it, therefore it is right.
The attitude that requires you to keep your feelings in check with your thoughts, making sure you are not giving in blindly to your emotions, and keep your thoughts in check with your feelings, making sure you are not coldly strategizing, is the opposite of an attitude of entitlement, it's a deliberative process which requires humility.
The problem is you're conflating people who make valid points about ethics with compassion in mind and people who are just vociferating about ethics (naively thinking that vociferations will have people forget about their shortcomings).
A normal human being would start with a principle, like saving lives, and in the case of the trolley experiment, it is about a choice between the principle, or the guilt of killing someone, so two principles fighting each others. According the them, those with cognitive empathy tends to try and save the majority, if it is certain death. That is all the experiment demonstrates, not that people think and have emotions, or that those are always right.
But the experiment doesn't indicate whether the person who is pulling the lever is an ethical person. It's not just about pulling the right lever, how you treat people matters as well. People are not abstractions.
perejil wrote:I'd be curious to know which of those motives would get poster's thumbs up of approval (because they accomplish/gain something important) and which would be deemed weak/pathetic?
People often conduct themselves along the lines of more than one motive. As long as their is a valid point in a motives cocktail, it's fine by me. Besides,dissecting motives with someone you trust can be a lot of fun. The utterly gratuitous kind of motives I want to skip/ignore.
but repenting sometimes makes you feel closer to love,if it is honestly what you feel it needs empathy and caring for others and it can make you change.
News
Site map
SitemapIndex
RSS Feed