The Philosophy Discussion Forum

When I go to the store and buy food, I get something from people who worked hard to give me something I need to keep me alive, keep my body healthy and well fed.

I OWE them something in return.

What I owe them has to be equally nourishing to them, equally beneficial to them, to their children, to others.

You owe them money and you owe them a civil and respectful interaction ... and that's all.

So where are the philosophers who are supposed to examine an issue from all possible angles?

They are still analyzing the morality of getting out of bed.

I must be in the wrong thread.

I thought this was "Applied Ethics"?

Sounds like applied immorality and irresponsibility.

Since when I am beholden to any one to examine any issue 'from all possible angles' (being mindful of other perspectives)?

'I' have a perspective (myself) that's defendable and valid.

#

"immorality and irresponsibility"

Eye of the beholder.

Your (picayune) mistake: assuming 'your' ethic is the 'right' ethic and therefore applicable to everyone.

Ned, just so you know that I'm not completely unaware of other people's problems.

Many years ago I owned a hobby shop and one of the lines was model rockets. One day a young boy came it and bought a rocket kit and paid with coins. After he left I looked at them and many were quite old, so I picked them out and set them aside. The next day he was back with his mother, and it turned out that he had taken the coins from her boyfriend's coin collection. I returned them saying I wasn't sure that I had gotten all of the old ones but she said it was OK and paid with current currency. I could have played dumb and claimed I hadn't noticed anything, as the coins were certainly worth more than 'face value', but I returned them because it was the right thing to do, not because they were stolen, even though that was a part of it.

thedoc wrote: I returned them because it was the right thing to do, not because they were stolen, even though that was a part of it.

Now you are speaking my language.

Thank you.

henry quirk wrote:'I' have a perspective (myself) that's defendable and valid.

The last man on Earth

The last man on Earth
sat alone in his room,
aware of his isolation,
knowing He would come for him soon
with his well-deserved salvation.

There was a knock on the door
and he eagerly rushed to answer,
wondering why He was late…
…
but he saw only hooves, tail and horn,
sealing his misanthropic fate.

And where does responsibility end?

Should you not investigate every customer, of the hobby store, to determine whether he is paying with money acquired by theft, dealing in illegal drugs, manufacture of munitions, etc?

Ned wrote:

thedoc wrote: I returned them because it was the right thing to do, not because they were stolen, even though that was a part of it.

Now you are speaking my language.

Thank you.

And that leaves us with a very big problem, how to determine what is the 'right thing' in every unique situation, for every individual person. That is a lot of different situations every day times almost 7 billion individual people in this world, can you solve that in an afternoon? including coffee breaks?

phyllo wrote:And where does responsibility end?

Should you not investigate every customer, of the hobby store, to determine whether he is paying with money acquired by theft, dealing in illegal drugs, manufacture of munitions, etc?

As long as you have a personal morality that goes beyond blind and unscrupulous self interest, then you are fine, you are not a potential parasite on humanity's body.

If you want to go beyond that, it is up to you.

Ned wrote:

henry quirk wrote:'I' have a perspective (myself) that's defendable and valid.

The last man on Earth

The last man on Earth
sat alone in his room,
aware of his isolation,
knowing He would come for him soon
with his well-deserved salvation.

There was a knock on the door
and he eagerly rushed to answer,
wondering why He was late…
…
but he saw only hooves, tail and horn,
sealing his misanthropic fate.

Or like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAxARJyaTEA

Explain how my position outlined in this thread could make me "a potential parasite on humanity's body"?

thedoc wrote:And that leaves us with a very big problem, how to determine what is the 'right thing' in every unique situation, for every individual person. That is a lot of different situations every day times almost 7 billion individual people in this world, can you solve that in an afternoon? including coffee breaks?

You have to look in the mirror every day and ask yourself: what is it I am giving back?

If you are only interested in taking, then you are a thief.

If you make harmful things (land-mines, poisons, oil-spills, etc., ) then you are worse than a thief -- you are being destructive.

If you make useless things that nobody needs, then you are a drain on society.

If you make useful things that are demonstrably good for other people (don't need any fancy justification) then you are an honourable, useful member of your species.

These are your choices as I see them.

As long as you have a personal morality that goes beyond blind and unscrupulous self interest, then you are fine, you are not a potential parasite on humanity's body.

If you want to go beyond that, it is up to you.

That suggests a simple honest exchange of goods for money. But before you wrote about 'nourishing'.

So what's the difference between what you are saying about a personal morality and what others have been saying?