Quote (Voyaging @ Jan 24 2015 10:27pm)
Perhaps, though I'm very much a "value realist" as I think certain flavors of experience are (dis)valuable by their very nature (intense agony is intrinsically disvaluable; no change of opinion can make brutal torture less horrid).
Honestly I'm still stuck on rationalists ethics, ie: Kant and the Categorical Imperative/Ends-Means Principle. Being so involved in social work has made this commitment even deeper given the NASW Code of Ethics being a rational and deontological code in the tradition of Kant.
I know that doing this isn't doing what is objectively correct, as Kant believed, it is rather me taking a stand, recognizing that for me there is a right or wrong and a standard for judgement of character, and that failing to make this choice (acknowledging Right and Wrong exists in regards to behavior) delegates one to living life as a dog or other lower beast and in the Kantian definition fails to me the standard of actually being a Person. It is important to note that what a person does of much more important than what a person thinks or believes, although the last two relevant. This is is largely part of the philosophy expounded by Kierkegaard. This particular bit is from
Diary of a Seducer, which is Kierkegaard's criticism of Romanticism and the idea that life is to be lived in hedonism and for pleasure. He takes on Hegel in
Either/Or, the name alone being an attack on Hegelian Dialectics.
These were big beefs in Continental Philosophy. I know you were curious about it
It is very interesting how Kierkegaard uses the story of Abraham to pwn Hegel gg no re.