Sounds legit. Do you think these constitute Kantian moral imperatives?
the titantic iceberg
Sort:
i take this from adam smith, who is mostly known for "wealth of nations", which is a book of the "dismal science" ( economics ) yet i was reading a passing reference about adam smith and it was noted that he, adam smith, considered himself a moral philosopher and not an economics writer.
the point of adam smith was the morality of self-interest. from this he struck out for capitalism ( not crony or state-capitalism ) but the pure capitalism of the small farmer and ironmonger tradesman or ship owner setting sail to buy tobacco in one land and selling it another, etc. in his morality he opined, correctly, in my opinion that a man looks to "better his condition". this is not selfishness per se, it is rather a desire to build a better roof on his home, to clothe himself and his children, to buy bread, more bread and or better bread ( and perhaps some butter ). to this i add the first biological truth ( that man wishes to live...admitting a darwinian first principle ) then to adam smith's note that a man wishes to improve his condition ( be he lord of the manor or a highwayman in the forest ) then to add the truth of blood, that a parent will suffer for her or his offspring / or the spirited moralist who will die for another or help another for ideals, or the soldier who will die for a companion..altruism...the opposite of the first principle of darwinism...
thus i encompass the hardest enemies of philosophy into four great truths in a place where they all agree for what philosophy can escape the truth of these four ( which in themselves do not fight among themselves for surely the second is the sponser of the third and fourth...
...what inside the interior of the second gives rise to the surety of the third and fourth ?
this the defeat or truth of the fourth immutable laws i propose.
the true author of this concept is francis hutcheson...the extreme end of this is ayn rand.
...is there no answer...is this not the intellectual chess forum ?
221 members ?
3 thoughts ?
It does seem odd and contradictory to me that a person would die to save the life of someone else, but the way I see mostly that person is related to the person who would die, so it does seem like a Darwinian method of altruism, so then the person dies to save the gene pool.
sir, you struggle so to save darwin.
one never dives into the dark sea to save a life thinking of a gene pool or dna.
one dies for a human or to be human.
let us be good friends even though i see your intellectual dwarfishness..
( i forgive your limits if you are still willing to pay for my food at the counter ).
___________________________________________________________---------
darwin explains but cannot explain purpose.
i live for purpose.
a life for explanation is but an encyclopedia.
a life of purpose is a life of value.
darwin can never explain value.
yet, in spite of your limited worldview...yet may we still share a glass of claret ?
no social economic movment can set sail upon the waters of human history and reach port without being struck by the "iceberg of the four great truths". the ship will sink to a certainty for this iceberg cannot be defeated or avoided. for a short period of time, one generation, and generally at the point of a gun, the captain of the ship moves across the sea with the iceberg in sight and fires at it in the hope that thru force he can sink the iceberg...but he will fail and his new titantic movement will go down.
these four immutable truths are:
1. man wishes to live.
2. a man wishes to improve his own personal condition.
3. a man may give his life so that he chooses to let someone he cares about to live.
4. a man may sacrifice his own personal condition to improve the personal condition of someone he cares about.