RE: The Compatibility Of Three Approachs To Ethics
October 1, 2016 at 6:03 pm
(This post was last modified: October 7, 2016 at 9:25 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
(October 1, 2016 at 5:55 pm)abaris Wrote:(October 1, 2016 at 5:50 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: I have an absence of evidence of anything to add but no evidence of absence of anything to add.
What I am saying is that you simply have to be human in the natural sense of the word to be ethical. Human as in being able to feel compassion instead of being a sociopath. Not philosophy required. Maybe I'm in the mniority, but I'm one of the persons who hold the position of no philosophy required at all if you are a sentient being. And I don't even confine that to humans.
I agree with you. But I don't think all ethical people are equally ethical.
If I gave more money to charity I would be more ethical. Whether that's in the future after selfishly saving and earning more money and working on myself-- or whether that's sooner rather than later despite it impacting on my finances more than is perhaps wise. Whatever in the long run overall provides more money to charity. Probably the former.
Of course we don't have to give to charity to be decent and ethical people. And I currently do not.
And of course it doesn't apply to all charities. And many but not all charities are good and some perhaps are better than others but it depends what we care to care for.
