A psychopath is not in touch with reality. It could be argued that rationalists are psychopaths, while empiricists are not.SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Thu Oct 25, 2012 3:50 pmThen that 'particular' philosopher doesn't understand something very fundamental.vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Why do philosophers need to agonise over right and wrong? Is it wrong to torture a kitten? Any normal person will say, 'of course it is', but a philosopher will say,' it's purely subjective, there is no right or wrong answer'.
Rationalists and empiricists aside, the answer to the kitten question may indeed be subjective, since a true psychopath might think it's not wrong to torture a kitten. Applying the question itself only to normal people, it may indeed be a trivial thing over which to agonize.
But there are other questions, not merely questions from philosophy of ethics. Is it right or wrong to believe in a deity? Is it right or wrong that thought can exist without language? Is it right or wrong to say that dualism is the answer to the mind/brain problem?
(Perhaps right v wrong should be limited to what is good v evil. In which case, correct v incorrect, as my examples above imply, should be dismissed out of hand at this time. If so, please disregard this post.)