An analysis of the morally correct way to live

References and Further Reading 1. Metaethics The term "meta" means after or beyond, and, consequently, the notion of metaethics involves a removed, or bird's eye view of the entire project of ethics. We may define metaethics as the study of the origin and meaning of ethical concepts. When compared to normative ethics and applied ethics, the field of metaethics is the least precisely defined area of moral philosophy.

An analysis of the morally correct way to live

Except that anticipation of future pleasure may balance or outweigh present pain. When you decide to go to graduate school you take it into consideration, otherwise, if built-in fear of death was not an issue, a heroin addiction followed by quick death would probably constitute a better plan.

Took some reasoning to get there, I would bet.

An analysis of the morally correct way to live

Surely it is inherent in pain that it be painful? If I chucked a baby against a brick wall, I would be causing pain to that baby assuming that the baby has a functioning nervous system and my act would be bad because it was painful.

For the absence of pain to be good means that there must someone be around who actually finds some benefit in there being an absence of pain. Sounds like a more or less standard nihilist angle with a slight twist, i.

Though it probably made his wrist ache a bit, fnarr-fnarr… Dominic Fox Maybe he was the ghost-writer sic of the book under discussion…. Is the emptiness of interstellar space good because it is a pain-free zone? Coming to human beings, does this mean that it would be wrong to give birth to a child who was certain to experience a life of continuous unlimited bliss, because the moment of birth would be painful?

That seems to be what is wanted for the argument, but it also seems crazy. I want to repeat that what is being argued here are questions of individual judgement, individual choices which are not right or wrong but matters of free choice.

Surely no one would argue that esthetic questions have right and wrong answers? No, I take that back. I know someone who argues that some music is intrinsicly good Beethoven, Tchaikovsky while other music is intrinsicly bad Elvis, the Beatles, Metallica.

But surely nobody sensible would agree with him, right? Antinatalism is incredibly easy to defend. Just think of the worst things that can happen to a person.

I know my preference is to be an antinatalist who affirms the lives of those already living.

Search form

And yet there seems to be a potential inconsistency just in deciding to continue my own existence. If I say that a person should categorically not create a human life, because of the nonzero probability that their offspring will one day meet their end in agony and terror whether buried alive, burned alive, trampled to death, etcwhy not apply this reasoning to myself?

It seems I should kill myself now, rather than face the risk that any of those things will happen to me one day. It seems hard to defend this difference in attitude without leaving the door open for a step away from categorical antinatalism.

Does Benatar have anything to say on this point? That sounds right on a very abstract level, but things become a lot murkier when one looks at reality. Both addiction and the contemplation of suicide are generally characterized by the absence of sound judgement and free will.

The myth of the sovereign individual is unhelpful and counterproductive in such cases, instead outside intervention is called for.

For every individual that has made a conscious decision to succumb to addiction or commit suicide, there are thousands that are simply in the grip of a terrible mental state and that will be thankful a couple of weeks, months or years down the road for somebody having helped them get through it.

This is an argument in favor of genocide, as efficiently and rapidly as possible. If it is better not to have been born, then it is probably also better for adults to die now, since the amount of pain in their remaining lives will outweigh the pleasure.

By killing lots of people, you not only minimize the pain in their lives, but you prevent the pain of all their hypothetical descendents.

An analysis of the morally correct way to live

By killing their loved ones at the same time, you minimize the pain of grief. It would probably be best to kill everyone as painlessly as possible, but even a horribly slow and painful death would prevent incalculably more pain the the years to come.

Bonus points for exterminating all life with a central nervous system, but to do a thorough job, you need to kill everything to prevent evolution producing more organisms that can feel pain. I agree with John Quiggin 55 that point 3 is meaningless. That basically leaves points 1 and 2 in the utilitarian equation.

Living is optional and this option protects people from possible bad outcomes of living. Benatar perspective would seem to suggest that making suicide more ready available is the right way to go and would eliminate most of the force of his argument for not creating people.

I recognize that one problem here is that other people come to depend on one over time and that suicide creates losses for those left behind, which complicates the analysis above.Moral Relativism.

Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others.

It has often been associated with other claims about morality: notably, the thesis that different cultures often exhibit radically different moral. The Morality of Reputation and the Judgment of Others.

David S. Oderberg. Department of Philosophy, University of Reading I sketch a way in which we might accommodate both, via an evaluation of the good of reputation and the ethics of judgment of other people’s character and behaviour. We in the liberal, democratic West live in a.

deviant behaviour is not considered normal or morally correct by most people. sordid adjective. immoral, dishonest, or unpleasant. sinful adjective. behaving in a way that is not moral or socially acceptable, and not caring if other people are shocked or offended. Free thesaurus definition of morally bad or wrong from the Macmillan.

A.1 What are the differences between individualist and social anarchists?

Complexity characterises the behaviour of a system or model whose components interact in multiple ways and follow local rules, meaning there is no reasonable higher instruction to define the various possible interactions..

The term is generally used to characterize something with many parts where those parts interact with each other in multiple ways, culminating in a higher order of emergence.

Ethical Theories. STUDY. Ethics really boils down to a cost-benefit analysis. One should only perform actions that promote societal happiness.

The only way to make sure one acts in a morally good way is to look around to see what most other people are doing and act as they do. In the USA its ok to eat beef, in India it is immoral.

In the case against moral relativism Pojman provides an analysis of Relativism. make it difficult to resolve issues surrounding the dilemma. What is morality. How is it possible to know what is morally correct when cultures differ so vastly. - Culture Relativism Culture Relativism is a contradictory theory for the explanation of the way.

Serpentine Ramp (Temple Grandin) - Design and Violence