|
caf1bdd
|
As you say of yourself, I too am an . I consider the genuine (not the imputed) doctrines of as containing everything rational in moral philosophy which Greece and Rome have left us. [ ]
|
|
epicureanism
philosophy-rome
secular-morality
epicurus
secular-ethics
moral-philosophy
greece
|
Thomas Jefferson |
|
cff6438
|
"If we can use an H-bomb--and as you said it's no checker game; it's real, it's war and nobody is fooling around--isn't it sort of ridiculous to go crawling around in the weeds, throwing knives and maybe getting yourself killed . . . and even losing the war . . . when you've got a real weapon you can use to win? What's the point in a whole lot of men risking their lives with obsolete weapons when one professor type can do so much more just by pushing a button?' Zim didn't answer at once, which wasn't like him at all. Then he said softly, 'Are you happy in the Infantry, Hendrick? You can resign, you know.' Hendrick muttered something; Zim said, 'Speak up!' I'm not itching to resign, sir. I'm going to sweat out my term.' I see. Well, the question you asked is one that a sergeant isn't really qualified to answer . . . and one that you shouldn't ask me. You're supposed to know the answer before you join up. Or you should. Did your school have a course in History and Moral Philosophy?' What? Sure--yes, sir.' Then you've heard the answer. But I'll give you my own--unofficial--views on it. If you wanted to teach a baby a lesson, would you cuts its head off?' Why . . . no, sir!' Of course not. You'd paddle it. There can be circumstances when it's just as foolish to hit an enemy with an H-Bomb as it would be to spank a baby with an ax. War is not violence and killing, pure and simple; war is controlled violence, for a purpose. The purpose of war is to support your government's decisions by force. The purpose is never to kill the enemy just to be killing him . . . but to make him do what you want him to do. Not killing . . . but controlled and purposeful violence. But it's not your business or mine to decide the purpose of the control. It's never a soldier's business to decide when or where or how--or why--he fights; that belongs to the statesmen and the generals. The statesmen decide why and how much; the generals take it from there and tell us where and when and how. We supply the violence; other people--"older and wiser heads," as they say--supply the control. Which is as it should be. That's the best answer I can give you. If it doesn't satisfy you, I'll get you a chit to go talk to the regimental commander. If he can't convince you--then go home and be a civilian! Because in that case you will certainly never make a soldier."
|
|
violence
war
moral-philosophy
military
training
|
Robert A. Heinlein |
|
9d0dddb
|
Putting yourself in the place of others...is what thinking ethically is all about.
|
|
moral-philosophy
ethics
|
Peter Singer |
|
8b769f1
|
To say that life is meaningless is to express an attitude, not to state a fact
|
|
meaning
philosophy
moral-philosophy
nihilism
purpose
|
Peter Singer |
|
bc447e8
|
If 10 percent of the population were to take a consciously ethical outlook on life and act accordingly, the resulting change would be more significant than any change of government,
|
|
kindness
morality
moral-philosophy
ethics
|
Peter Singer |
|
cf57761
|
...moral relativism, a position many find attractive only until they are faced with someone who is doing something really, really wrong.
|
|
philosophy
moral-philosophy
|
Peter Singer |
|
d7ddd9f
|
A majority of people in these surveys also said that America gives too much aid--but when they were asked how much America should give, the median answers ranged from 5 percent to 10 percent of government spending. In other words, people wanted foreign aid 'cut' to an amount five to ten times greater than the United States actually gives!
|
|
poverty
foreign-aid
moral-philosophy
ethics
|
Peter Singer |
|
d0e778f
|
If we shrug our shoulders at the avoidable suffering of the weak and the poor, of those who are getting exploited and ripped off, we are not the left.
|
|
politics
moral-philosophy
left-wing
ethics
fairness
|
Peter Singer |
|
1c9d560
|
There are some things that, once lost, no amount of money can regain. Thus to justify the destruction of an ancient forest on the grounds that it will earn us substantial export income is problematic, even if we could invest that income and increase its value from year to year; for no matter how much we increase its value, its could never buy back the link with the past represented by the forest.
|
|
environmentalism
moral-philosophy
ethics
|
Peter Singer |
|
4181e4a
|
Just as we will spend large sums to preserve cities like Venice, even though future generations conceivably may not be interested in such architectural treasures, so we should preserve wilderness even though it is possible that future generations will care little for it.
|
|
environmentalism
moral-philosophy
ethics
|
Peter Singer |
|
66265d0
|
Some of the conclusions that I draw are very different from the ethical views most people hold today. That, however, is not a ground for dismissing them. If every proposal for reform in ethics that differed from accepted moral views had been rejected for that reason alone, we would still be torturing heretics, enslaving members of conquered races, and treating women as the property of their husbands.
|
|
progress
moral-philosophy
reform
ethics
|
Peter Singer |
|
022bc4c
|
Their reliance on biblical quotations does not augur well for their for their openness to moral reasoning....
|
|
religion
moral-philosophy
|
Peter Singer |