Comments on: Wo war das hohe Gericht, bis zu dem er nie gekommen war?

By: naisioxerloro

naisioxerloro — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 15:25:33 +0000

Hi. Good design, who make it?

By: maikmidlooks

maikmidlooks — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 13:09:07 +0000

Hi everyone

I’ve recently found an excellent video :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7jUnptjqZE

Regards

maik midlooks

By: AltaGid

AltaGid — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 22:18:59 +0000

Hello! Help solve the problem. Very often try to enter the site, but says that the password is not correct. Regrettably use of remembering. Give like to be? Thank you!

By: Curt

Curt — Mon, 28 May 2007 05:37:35 +0000

Кто спрашивает?

By: LolitochkaBC

LolitochkaBC — Thu, 10 May 2007 10:55:28 +0000

Ааану-ка ребятки гоосвем!!!!

Признавайтесь прокзаники и владельцы сайта www.sellingwaves.com ))))

ЧТО вы будеет делать этим лтоем?!

By: Curt

Curt — Sat, 17 Jun 2006 17:59:31 +0000

I was using the term “morals” to indicate a system of rules and directives, and “ethics” as a more generalized conception of right and wrong. Given what I have already said, that pretty much already answers the question. I think moral rules are useful as guidelines for a behavior, since a number of dictates can established which are valid in probably the vast majority of cases, and they should be borne in mind even when they are not, as in Kant’s lying example, to remind one that a trade-off is being made at some level. The problem with Kant is that he makes internal consistency between one’s actions and the rule rather than correspondence between one’s actions and the well-being of those affected the basic standard of value. At the same time, one should not make the mistake, as consequentialist or utilitarian philosophies are prone to, of separating actions and their consequences too neatly. The mere fact of doing something can have significant psychological consequences for those involved, apart from what the material results of it are. Hence the whole notion of making “gestures,” which are not necessarily just emptily symbolic, but can be indications of the disposition or relationship between people.

By: shonk

shonk — Sat, 17 Jun 2006 03:36:08 +0000

Just assume I’m using them in the sense you intended in the first paragraph of your post. I’m probably not, but that provides a starting point.

By: Curt

Curt — Sat, 17 Jun 2006 02:59:18 +0000

It depends what you mean by ethics and morals.

By: shonk

shonk — Fri, 16 Jun 2006 22:03:23 +0000

To what extent are (or ought) ethics divorced from morals, in your opinion?

By: Curt

Curt — Thu, 15 Jun 2006 17:46:16 +0000

In one sense yes and in one sense no. Obviously I do not mean that all ethical systems consciously make the maximization of happiness their goal, otherwise it would have been a redundant point to make. At the same time, it is hard to think of an ethical system that does not in some way justify itself by reference to its capacity to increase the well-being of those subject to it, even if those benefits be postponed to the afterlife, as in Christianity, or some nebulous utopian terrestrial future, as in Marxism. In any case, by the goal of ethics I mean the ideal goal, what the goal should be and what in my view constitutes the raison d'être for ethical systems in the first place.