I was listening to this video about communism and I got to this point that I wanted to consider. I hear at the 245 mark that when considering a moral philosopher, what you'd wanna do is examine the moral philosopher themself and see if they are good or not. Do you think that matters? Does it matter if somebody's good if they're a moral philosopher?
If you are into moral philosophy and you are trying to do good every day and you're looking for the best possible arguments possibile and that's one situation, the situation you find yourself in, and then you compare this to somebody like... Marx who just abused people often these differences are two different scenarios. What do you think about this?
Do you see what I'm getting at?
And another question, take these two people, if the person trying to do good has an immediately harmful theory but just ends up meeting bad fortune and doesn't manifest good in the world are they likened to the person abusing others unapologetically, and justly so?
YouTube
I was listening to this video about communism and I got to this point that I wanted to consider. I hear at the 245 mark that when considering a moral philosopher, what you'd wanna do is examine the moral philosopher themself and see if they are good or not. Do you think that matters? Does it matter if somebody's good if they're a moral philosopher?
If you are into moral philosophy and you are trying to do good every day and you're looking for the best possible arguments possibile and that's one situation, the situation you find yourself in, and then you compare this to somebody like... Marx who just abused people often these differences are two different scenarios. What do you think about this?
Do you see what I'm getting at?
And another question, take these two people, if the person trying to do good has an immediately harmful theory but just ends up meeting bad fortune and doesn't manifest good in the world are they likened to the person abusing others unapologetically, and justly so?
YouTube
If you are into moral philosophy and you are trying to do good every day
Secondly, I am totally confused by your two main questions and therefore cannot answer them. Sorry.
I think it can be instructive if the actual life of the philosopher is related to their moral philosophy. Nietzsche was sickly as a child, and had serious health problems all his life, many relationship disappointments, job issues, and yet his answer was a beautiful idea he termed Amor Fati. Love your fate. Love the good AND the bad. Love it so much that you will be reluctant to go to Heaven.
Or consider Foucault and Sartre. Child molesters and perverts in private life. I try to consider what they write with an open mind, but it's hard to separate their writing from the men themselves.
If you are reading communist writers, most of them fell far short of living out the principles they espoused. To me this indicates that it's far easier to describe the perfect person, or the perfect governmental system, than it is to live it out. And here's where they fail. Communism depends on a person who has never lived and will never live. It depends on a great amount of altruism, and a person who will not misuse unlimited power (power of the state). This requires a near perfect person, in fact a society of near perfect people. Democracy, along with Capitalism, acknowledges and guards against the inevitable shortcomings of people. Democracy builds in checks and balances, protection for the minority, and individual rights are spelled out. Capitalism tries to redirect the inevitable greed and competition into a positive for society. The hard part of democracy is figuring how much to regulate that greed and competition. Communism, on the other hand, can get out of control very quickly, and end up one man, one party rule.
As far as I can make out.
1. Should the message of Ghandi be discounted because he slept with his nieces? Martin Luther King because he had relations with ladies of the evening? JFK because he had affairs?
2. Is evil perpetrated by well-intentioned idiots equally as reprehensible as evil perpetrated for pure malice?
(Substitute question examples with Communism related ones.)
I was listening to this video about communism and I got to this point that I wanted to consider. I hear at the 245 mark that when considering a moral philosopher, what you'd wanna do is examine the moral philosopher themself and see if they are good or not. Do you think that matters? Does it matter if somebody's good if they're a moral philosopher?
If you are into moral philosophy and you are trying to do good every day and you're looking for the best possible arguments possibile and that's one situation, the situation you find yourself in, and then you compare this to somebody like... Marx who just abused people often these differences are two different scenarios. What do you think about this?
Do you see what I'm getting at?
And another question, take these two people, if the person trying to do good has an immediately harmful theory but just ends up meeting bad fortune and doesn't manifest good in the world are they likened to the person abusing others unapologetically, and justly so?
YouTube
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?