Ethics

[brownprose]

---

UNSAON MANSAD PAG LEARN
OG WAI SIYAY LAING MAKIT-AN
IYA RANG KAUGALINGON IYA TAN-AWN - TAN-AWN
NAG INOSARA RA SIYA PERMI
MATOD PAZ THREAD STARTER.. WAI KLARO!

Matud pa ni Socrates, a person must become aware of every fact relevant to his existence...people will naturally do what is good, if they know what is right. "Evil or bad actions, are the result of ignorance." Hence, knowledge defines the morality of the person.

Consequence also forms part in presiding what is good or bad. The mind cannot intuitively know what is good or bad until he discovers/knows the consequence/s of his action.

[LIBER777]

Matud pa ni Socrates, a person must become aware of every fact relevant to his existence...people will naturally do what is good, if they know what is right. "Evil or bad actions, are the result of ignorance." Hence, knowledge defines the morality of the person.

Consequence also forms part in presiding what is good or bad. The mind cannot intuitively know what is good or bad until he discovers/knows the consequence/s of his action.

MAO BITAW NI AKONG GI-IGON SA TS
PERO DELI GYUD SIYA NGITA GYUD SIYAG LAIN
TUBAG KANA BANG MATAGBAW SIYA!

“ AGE OF REASON LAGI CEGURO NI IMO PASABOT BOSING”


THOMAS P.

[brownprose]

MAO BITAW NI AKONG GI-IGON SA TS
PERO DELI GYUD SIYA NGITA GYUD SIYAG LAIN
TUBAG KANA BANG MATAGBAW SIYA!

“ AGE OF REASON LAGI CEGURO NI IMO PASABOT BOSING”


THOMAS P.

Daghan man gud ang schools of thought on the nature of ethics bro. In fact, there is what we call in Epistemology (Study on the nature of knowledge) called Meta-ethics in which philosophers postulate not only the origin of ethics or morality but also their properties and applications so taas-taas gyud ni nga higustanan. Managlahi ang mga panan-aw og theories ang mga philosophers aning mga butanga ug ang pangutana sa TS are but just one of the most frequently asked questions during the classical period -- beginning with Socrates (469 BC) until Aristotle to Theophrastus (288 BC)

As opposed to the Socratic thinking, Aristotle conjectured that knowledge is innate as it is with morality ... ergo, man can know what is right or wrong as it is embedded in his nature. Only a few subscribe to this idea kay lisud man gud ijustisfy ang Aristotelean position when we begin to ask "How can we tell with precision what is good from what is bad?" Mao na nga I have trouble accepting Aristotle's view in this light.

If morality/ethics is innate, it is like assuming that we know already what the color yellow looks like. Ethics as I have said is not intuitive until you get to know or discover it. It is experiential. You will only know what yellow is until you see or associate it with something that looks like it.

[brownprose]

^^ until the person is told what the toilet bowl is for, he/she will have to crap out anywhere he/she likes

[miyay]

^bitaw sad. but then, if you have no interaction with other people, no one would care anyway

[Hellblazer 2.1]

Ot


IN YEAR TO COME CHRISTIANITY
WILL BE NOTHING BUT A FADED
MEMORY OF A BROKEN DREAMS
FOR WE DO NOT BELIEVE IN LIES
OR FEAR THE WRATH OF ANY GOD.

hahaha! so, what do you think will replace Christianity, sir?

[cromagnon]

If u look at the chimpz , they have no law higher or lower law.

but they have already developed their own morals . they care for their young ,, they play peacefully.

and humans are higher, much developed morals.

[Egoist]

so? are you with the group that ethics is a product of experience?

[Tirong-say]

Instinctively yes, pero it takes time compared with the influence he could get by observing others.

[bungot25]

Can a man/woman still know what is good and what is bad, if s/he has no contact with other men/women since birth?
palihug ayaw lang sa i.apil ang Ginoo dri,, hehehe thank you

wala siguroy buot...