The Philosophy Now Forum

Of course this entire story can have been made up, this is the situation of the Gospels: we have no evidence about the historical reliability of most of its content. But I can’t see how this would make a difference in this discussion.

I agree with you, what you said is simply how things actually were in that historical context. When I wrote “he would have been accused of being a political subversive person, dangerous to the Roman establishment”, I referred to the perspective of Jesus’ questioners, not the perspective of Romans.

Matthew 22:21 says “ So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s ”. This answer is given to the question “ Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not? ” The question was aimed at trapping Jesus into a dead end: if he answered “Yes”, he would have been considered an ac...

From a critical point of view, both concepts of being and not being objects aren't free at all from uncertainty. Strictly speaking, we don't even know the ultimate meaning of being an object. I am going to deal with my question from an existential point of view. In an existential context it is clear...

I have already given pragmatic reasons What you call "pragmatic reasons" are, more honestly, "no explanations": you haven't given any explanation why your morality applies to humans only, while, at the same time, it is supposed to have scientific foundations. It's not intellectu...

It would be too messy and not pragmatic to stick to scientific definition in dealing with morality, given there are "over 1.5 million living animal species have been described" and possibly[?] "7.77 million animal species on Earth". Thus within the morality-proper FSRC, morality...

My morality is conditioned upon a human-based moral Framework and System. Human-based mean we humans can set the boundaries in this case. It is not a case of scientific definition. Isn’t there a contradiction between saying “It is not a case of scientific definition” and wanting to find foundations...

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2024 11:38 am in my definition of morality, it is only applicable to humans and never to animals

What is a scientific definition of the difference between humans and animals that makes a difference about morality? Or, in a scientific perspective, why does morality apply to humans only?

the teleology of all living things is the drive of the will-to-survive to survival as long as possible till the inevitable, thus the preservation of the species. That species has gone extinct does not obviate the above drive and purposes. It just that those species that were extinct were not succes...

I defined evil = an adjective in relation to any act and belief that is negative [net] to the well-being [survival, flourishing] of the individual[s] and that of humanity. Killing is the most extreme evil act. see: The Concept of Evil https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concept-evil/ ref: in the nar...

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2024 10:44 am ...killing of humans by humans is evil...

Why?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2024 10:02 am I define morality & ethics as the management and modulation of evil to enable its related good.

How do you determine what is evil and what is good?

Take the case of empathy which is one very critical element of morality. I don't think that empathy has anything to do with morality. The critical element of morality is judgement about what is good and what is bad, what is right and what is wrong. This is applied to actions, happenings, events. On...

... the scientific FSRC as the gold standard... I don't think that morality can find any ground on science, because science doesn't say anything about what is good and what is bad. Obviously, a morality that takes science into consideration is stronger than a morality that doesn't. I said "str...

... no one would deny it is objective to all humans. The fact that no one denies something doesn't mean so much. If no one denies that the planet earth is flat, this doesn't make the planet earth flat. I think the essential point is when you talk about frameworked objectivity. It means that you adm...