You can’t negate negation so how can being be? ~Shih-Shu, "The Clouds Should Know Me By Now"
Randy Spire
Mine is a double Anisette breve, but doesn't work any better necessarily.
Amen and thanks for the posts and comments. bush is a stupid fucker, and i agree, he has already lost. wisefawn, sharing the presence of one of these beasts would bring you to tears just standing there, the two of you.
http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=1-0688140718-0
Interesting point in today's news headlines, that JohnKerry's ancestors we're killed in the Holocaust and GW's financed them. Hmm.
yeah, and i think that gets us back to the question of intent.
It is also true that there exist common (universal) themes of social behavior which are cross cultural or supra-cultural, and independent of environment or upbringing. 'Man' can come into the world a blank slate, but there are also things inherent, though not necessarily a priori, to his/er existence. (i believe)
Well, . . . this is speculation at best, I'm afraid. I say this because in my understanding of Kant's general thesis on ethics/morality, this case of opposing priniples would not exists and possibly could not exists. So in a real sense the question is moot. I undestand this is not the case in practice of specific individuals in given contexts, but the fault for this lies in the individuals lack of clearly identified principles rather than in Kant's
In the case of Kant, my understanding is that the actor would, at the time of acting, wish that the basis of the decision to act would be universal law. For example, if I choose to give half my sandwich to another person, Kant's imperative would suggest that I also wish it to be universal law that every sandwich be shared by half with another.
"King of Ambiguity" can I get a JoeUser Award for that?!
Sorry, not contradictory at all, we are talking about two very differt thing there. one is the actor, the context, and the act taken. the second is the principle used to determine the act itself. This is not amiguous at all. And kudos to Corio. While I am not reading any Kant now (others may be), I am a long time fan, particualrly of his moral imperative where he argues that any act is determined good if it at the same time can be wished
i disagree. the aspects you mention are irrelevant. and while a specific action may depend on the context, the underlying principle does not. while these things you mention certainly will influence a given individual in a given situation, they are extraneous in terms of ethical principles and determining a universal morality.
Chavez has got it right, though, "pandejo"!
I think the important thing is to define what the principle(s) is/ are. It's fine if others' are different, but they should atleast be defined and known. Maybe someone disagrees even with this, certainly, but be able to clarify why. So, what are those principles? By what standaard should the good/bad ness of an action be determined?
I think all replies ought to be public. and how come no catefory for 'biggest asshole' or does that fall in 'most annoying'?
President Aristide Says 'I Was Kidnapped', 'Tell the World it is a Coup'
I don't disagree. I think the action should be determined on it's own merit without a focus on outcomes. A set of principles can guide each distinct action, the results of whihc can be guessed at but are utterly uncontrollable
Do the ends justify the means? I say no, the means are the end. If it is foreseeable harm, then one's intention couldn't be good. If the harm was foreseeable, then the action would be harmful. a cliche' is a cliche' is a cliche'. How about some original thought, this is the philosphy forum, not retelling old wives tales.
like a mini Haiti, another example of US funded, supplied, and trained opposition forces to oust popular socail democrats. a coup is a coup is a pendejo.
I don't think they necessarily need to be referred to, but they are still able to be expressed if necessary. As for intent, I believe that intention trumps outcome. If the intent is pure and the outcome bad, then it's a learning experience and one can adjust. If the intent is bad and the outcome good, this still ahs a net negative because the 'actor' has not made any progress.
if evolution is not a real process, how do you expect to ever go to Heaven?
Welcome to Women's History (& Future) Month. Rock on girl!
"doing the right thing no matter what, who really cares?" A good example of sloppy and lazy. That is the point of the post. Intention is at the very heart of what determines an action to be right or wrong. You may not care adn that's fine, but it only reflects you don't have a defines set of principles to operate from and to determine the quality of your own actions.
dan, are you the new hit-man for brad, or what?