Quote (bogie160 @ Jan 25 2015 02:07pm)
The average person has acted shamelessly so many times, whether to pit down others or place their interests ahead to the detriment of everyone else, that I really think it's indicative of some form of narcissism to say that you're a good person.
I think there's a happy medium between being too hard on yourself and being too proud of yourself.
Some people are genuinely really great people, devote their lives to making the world a better place. Sure, they slip up sometimes but I think people like that deserve to feel good about themselves and definitely wouldn't consider it narcissism.
Quote (Skinned @ Jan 25 2015 01:01pm)
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.
I think most forms of normative ethics (including deontology and virtue ethics) are compatible with the meta-ethics I'm espousing.
I'm not necessarily a moral realist, just a value realist, if that makes any sense. I think objective value exists, but what we ought to do about it isn't clear.
This post was edited by Voyaging on Jan 25 2015 01:53pm