http://www.thinktankforums.com/profile.php?user_id=2
dannyp's profile disgusts me. does anyone here actually like kant?
dannyp's profile disgusts me. does anyone here actually like kant?
no, i like that quote though. oops i have to update the hike info.
I don't know enough about Kant to (dis)like him. But since it disgusts you, I might enjoy it. :)
lucas: what makes you dislike kant?
the same thing that makes me dislike all modern moral philosophy: the idea of 'ought' as 'duty'.
kant argues that breaking faith is always wrong. no exceptions whatsoever.
killing a human being or yourself is always wrong. no exceptions whatsoever.
these go on and on.
the good depends on circumstances; isn't that clear already?
moreover, i hate the golden rule. if you want to legislate yourself within your own mind, do it. but don't force your self legislation on others. this is like the golden rule: do unto others as you would like others to do unto you. this means: use your moral laws considering others. why notuse my better alternative: use your moral laws for yourself, and let others use their moral laws for themselves?
better yet: live according to virtue, not moral laws, rules, duties, or universal oughts.
kant argues that breaking faith is always wrong. no exceptions whatsoever.
killing a human being or yourself is always wrong. no exceptions whatsoever.
these go on and on.
the good depends on circumstances; isn't that clear already?
moreover, i hate the golden rule. if you want to legislate yourself within your own mind, do it. but don't force your self legislation on others. this is like the golden rule: do unto others as you would like others to do unto you. this means: use your moral laws considering others. why notuse my better alternative: use your moral laws for yourself, and let others use their moral laws for themselves?
better yet: live according to virtue, not moral laws, rules, duties, or universal oughts.
You are undoing to others as you would like undone to you.
I like the thoughts about going against ought and duty, but I'm curious as to what your proposed social contract is, or what your sort of social philosophy may be.
I like the thoughts about going against ought and duty, but I'm curious as to what your proposed social contract is, or what your sort of social philosophy may be.
undoing? undone? i don't know what this means.
oh, and i don't have a positive philosophy about anything. i'm just here to tear shit up.
oh, and i don't have a positive philosophy about anything. i'm just here to tear shit up.
Your anti-golden rule still seems to be golden rule to me, but with negatives. Instead of doing unto others, you are undoing in that you leave them alone as you would like to be left alone from their moral law.
i never said that i would like to be left alone. even if i did, that wouldn't necessarily be the basis for me leaving other people alone. quit trying to prove my hypocrisy.
here is an attempt at a clearer picture:
kant states that each person has a moral duty.
i assert that i have no duty. i do what i will. period.
as for others: i don't care what they do. perhaps they would find their lives more meaningful if they do what they value and value what they do. i don't care if they attempt to chain me with their proclamations of moral duty. it doesn't work. they constrain me in the same way that a political system constrains man. not through thought or valuations.. just in what i get looked down upon for by the rest of society. who cares?!
if i leave them alone, it is because i find no value in them. not because it is what i would like them to do (or not do?) to me.
further clarification necessary?
i'm glad that some philosophies are being tossed down on ttf. please, bros, keep it coming.
here is an attempt at a clearer picture:
kant states that each person has a moral duty.
i assert that i have no duty. i do what i will. period.
as for others: i don't care what they do. perhaps they would find their lives more meaningful if they do what they value and value what they do. i don't care if they attempt to chain me with their proclamations of moral duty. it doesn't work. they constrain me in the same way that a political system constrains man. not through thought or valuations.. just in what i get looked down upon for by the rest of society. who cares?!
if i leave them alone, it is because i find no value in them. not because it is what i would like them to do (or not do?) to me.
further clarification necessary?
i'm glad that some philosophies are being tossed down on ttf. please, bros, keep it coming.
http://www.wingedleopard.net/wlwlv1/?view=847
It didn't occur to me until I was reading through some old arguments that this was an old argument!
It didn't occur to me until I was reading through some old arguments that this was an old argument!
yeah, it originated when i was taking phil 105. not many people liked my argument then (although my instructor did). the argument has been reinforced over time with numerous additional moral and ethical philosophy classes.
I'm not trying to prove your hypocrisy. How you intend to act with virtue without affecting other people by it? I know you did not explicitly say that you care weather you affect other people, however the fact that it does is important to my argument because affecting other people with these choices about virtuousness will eventually make their mark on others setting moral precedence for them, weather or not they agree with your moral validations of your virtue(s).
In not acting with morals you are still making a moral choice that is, in an absurd way, still golden rule. Regardless of your animosity to the concept, how it is any different that you act by virtue by choice, while other people are golden rule followers?
How do you validate your virtues without morals? How are you expressing what is virtuous?
I don't see Kant's philosophy any less disgusting than most others I've seen. It's equally as interesting to dissect as any modern philosophy. I also don't find your argument that appalling, I just don't see how it's extraordinarily different than golden rule. Do you have any sort of moral duty to your virtue?
Golden rule is devine command, and this assumes that the precedent cannot be negotiated. This static duty traps your virtuousness?
In not acting with morals you are still making a moral choice that is, in an absurd way, still golden rule. Regardless of your animosity to the concept, how it is any different that you act by virtue by choice, while other people are golden rule followers?
How do you validate your virtues without morals? How are you expressing what is virtuous?
I don't see Kant's philosophy any less disgusting than most others I've seen. It's equally as interesting to dissect as any modern philosophy. I also don't find your argument that appalling, I just don't see how it's extraordinarily different than golden rule. Do you have any sort of moral duty to your virtue?
Golden rule is devine command, and this assumes that the precedent cannot be negotiated. This static duty traps your virtuousness?
here's a new attempt at defeating kant's duty and moral worth:
consider two examples:
1.) i go visit my mother in the hospital because i want to see her and i derive happiness from such an action.
2.) i go visit my motherbecause i feel that i have a duty to do so, even though i hate her and do not want to see her.
kant claims that (2) demonstrates moral worth, while (1) has no moral worth. both are correct actions, but (2) and only (2) demonstrates moral worth.
this isn't disgusting to anyone, here?
consider two examples:
1.) i go visit my mother in the hospital because i want to see her and i derive happiness from such an action.
2.) i go visit my motherbecause i feel that i have a duty to do so, even though i hate her and do not want to see her.
kant claims that (2) demonstrates moral worth, while (1) has no moral worth. both are correct actions, but (2) and only (2) demonstrates moral worth.
this isn't disgusting to anyone, here?
categorical imperative I: act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law.
categorical imperative II: never treat a person simply as a means to an end, rather always treat them as an end.
applied to (1): catimpI - can you will everyone to see their mothers to derive happiness? catimpII - are you treating your mother as a means to your own end/happiness?
Depending on the answers to these questions the morality will reveal itself.
applied to (2): catimpI - implicit in this example is that the will is that everyone sees their mothers [but this would be done on false premises as the individual does not necessarily will that all people do this] catimpII - you are treating your a mother as a means of achieving absurd duty, that the person may or may not will on the rest of society since the person has that much disdain for the mother.
> kant claims that (2) demonstrates moral worth, while (1) has no moral worth.
i don't see how kant claims that (2) is moral. maybe if the person is under the false conciousness that it is his duty[would will it a universal law that people saw their mothers in the hospital to this person] to see his mother. (1) possibly has moral worth, depending on if the person is going to use their mother as an end rather than a means to happiness.
> but (2) and only (2) demonstrates moral worth.
not according to kant.
Here's the moral versions vis-a-vis kant:
1k) I go visit my mother in the hospital because I can will that all people visit their mothers in the hospital if in the act itself I can share happiness as an end with my mother.
2k) I can will that no one who hates their mother must visit them in the hospital, as long as I am not using my mother as means to my hate, but to meet her and hate as an end. This being the case, it is another thing entirely to decide if hate is moral.
Can I will that it be made a universal law that people hate their mothers? In doing this are you treating your mother as a means rather than an end?
So for 2k to be moral we would have to agree that hate is a moral end. I do not particularly, viewing through a kantian lens or otherwise.
categorical imperative II: never treat a person simply as a means to an end, rather always treat them as an end.
applied to (1): catimpI - can you will everyone to see their mothers to derive happiness? catimpII - are you treating your mother as a means to your own end/happiness?
Depending on the answers to these questions the morality will reveal itself.
applied to (2): catimpI - implicit in this example is that the will is that everyone sees their mothers [but this would be done on false premises as the individual does not necessarily will that all people do this] catimpII - you are treating your a mother as a means of achieving absurd duty, that the person may or may not will on the rest of society since the person has that much disdain for the mother.
> kant claims that (2) demonstrates moral worth, while (1) has no moral worth.
i don't see how kant claims that (2) is moral. maybe if the person is under the false conciousness that it is his duty[would will it a universal law that people saw their mothers in the hospital to this person] to see his mother. (1) possibly has moral worth, depending on if the person is going to use their mother as an end rather than a means to happiness.
> but (2) and only (2) demonstrates moral worth.
not according to kant.
Here's the moral versions vis-a-vis kant:
1k) I go visit my mother in the hospital because I can will that all people visit their mothers in the hospital if in the act itself I can share happiness as an end with my mother.
2k) I can will that no one who hates their mother must visit them in the hospital, as long as I am not using my mother as means to my hate, but to meet her and hate as an end. This being the case, it is another thing entirely to decide if hate is moral.
Can I will that it be made a universal law that people hate their mothers? In doing this are you treating your mother as a means rather than an end?
So for 2k to be moral we would have to agree that hate is a moral end. I do not particularly, viewing through a kantian lens or otherwise.
there is a lot more to kant than the categorical imperative...
> i don't see how kant claims that (2) is moral.
> not according to kant.
read kant's groundwork. this is his example right out of his book.
i don't think you can apply the CI here very well or cleanly. remember that kant has developed everything from his own metaphysics to a complete deontological ethic. just because i mention kant doesn't mean that the categorical imperative will be used. he has so much else to his philosophy. it just so happens that the CI is a small part of his ethics, and he doesn't imply it here.
> i don't see how kant claims that (2) is moral.
> not according to kant.
read kant's groundwork. this is his example right out of his book.
i don't think you can apply the CI here very well or cleanly. remember that kant has developed everything from his own metaphysics to a complete deontological ethic. just because i mention kant doesn't mean that the categorical imperative will be used. he has so much else to his philosophy. it just so happens that the CI is a small part of his ethics, and he doesn't imply it here.
> there is a lot more to kant than the categorical imperative...
Let's not go overboard with the facts.
> i don't think you can apply the CI here very well or cleanly. remember that kant has developed everything from his own metaphysics to a complete deontological ethic.
I clearly did apply CI's, if you don't think there's a reason to, don't avoid telling me why.
What the hell does metaphysics have to do with the morality of talking to a mother at a hospital?
CI's can very well be applied to this situation. The moment you begin referring to duty, what will you should exhibit, and a priori morals, you inevietably come to the CI. What is the predication of deontological ethics? CI's.
> just because i mention kant doesn't mean that the categorical imperative will be used. he has so much else to his philosophy. it just so happens that the CI is a small part of his ethics, and he doesn't imply it here.
You tell me what's relevant if not CI's. In the vastness that is Kant's philosophy, what else deals with these moral duties? I think it's crazy that you are so dimunitive of the foundation of his deontological ethics. The 'small part' is also the support beam for the structure. Taking out CI's would leave Kant with an incoherent philosophical position as there would be no method for determining the duty one will live by.
What constitutes 'demonstrating moral worth'? What makes those moral examples so disgusting?
Let's not go overboard with the facts.
> i don't think you can apply the CI here very well or cleanly. remember that kant has developed everything from his own metaphysics to a complete deontological ethic.
I clearly did apply CI's, if you don't think there's a reason to, don't avoid telling me why.
What the hell does metaphysics have to do with the morality of talking to a mother at a hospital?
CI's can very well be applied to this situation. The moment you begin referring to duty, what will you should exhibit, and a priori morals, you inevietably come to the CI. What is the predication of deontological ethics? CI's.
> just because i mention kant doesn't mean that the categorical imperative will be used. he has so much else to his philosophy. it just so happens that the CI is a small part of his ethics, and he doesn't imply it here.
You tell me what's relevant if not CI's. In the vastness that is Kant's philosophy, what else deals with these moral duties? I think it's crazy that you are so dimunitive of the foundation of his deontological ethics. The 'small part' is also the support beam for the structure. Taking out CI's would leave Kant with an incoherent philosophical position as there would be no method for determining the duty one will live by.
What constitutes 'demonstrating moral worth'? What makes those moral examples so disgusting?
> Let's not go overboard with the facts.
are you joking?
> I clearly did apply CI's, if you don't think there's a reason to, don't avoid telling me why.
because in the section of the Groundwork that i am referring to, he isn't talking about the CI. he is talking about moral worth. why don't you ask him why he wrote his book that way?
> What the hell does metaphysics have to do with the morality of talking to a mother at a hospital?
it doesn't. the point is that if i mention kant you assume that i mean the CI. there is tons more to kant than the CI, including more ethical arguments, moral arguments, and metaphysical arguments. you seem to think that kant is synonymouswith the categorical imperative. he did so much more, though!
> You tell me what's relevant if not CI's.
i did. moral worth. which was what i was talking about.
> what else deals with these moral duties?
the entire body of his ethic, not just the CI.
> Taking out CI's would leave Kant with an incoherent philosophical position as there would be no method for determining the duty one will live by.
don't be so sure.
> What makes those moral examples so disgusting?
what can't you see? kant says that if i wish to go visit my friend in the hospital for his sake or because i want to, then i am not demonstrating moral worth. however, if i go visit my friend because of my duty and not because of my desire, then i have demonstrated moral worth. the thing that is disgusting is that if i'm the one in the hospital, my friend would be all like "i really don't want to fucking see you, in fact i hate you. but i have a duty to come visit. and i'm pretty much a morally superior person." you like these kind of people?
by the way, what is your obsession with the categorical imperative? please read more kant, you'll realize how it's just one small part of everything that he has written. saying that kant is primarily the CI is like saying that all aristotle ever did was ethics...
are you joking?
> I clearly did apply CI's, if you don't think there's a reason to, don't avoid telling me why.
because in the section of the Groundwork that i am referring to, he isn't talking about the CI. he is talking about moral worth. why don't you ask him why he wrote his book that way?
> What the hell does metaphysics have to do with the morality of talking to a mother at a hospital?
it doesn't. the point is that if i mention kant you assume that i mean the CI. there is tons more to kant than the CI, including more ethical arguments, moral arguments, and metaphysical arguments. you seem to think that kant is synonymouswith the categorical imperative. he did so much more, though!
> You tell me what's relevant if not CI's.
i did. moral worth. which was what i was talking about.
> what else deals with these moral duties?
the entire body of his ethic, not just the CI.
> Taking out CI's would leave Kant with an incoherent philosophical position as there would be no method for determining the duty one will live by.
don't be so sure.
> What makes those moral examples so disgusting?
what can't you see? kant says that if i wish to go visit my friend in the hospital for his sake or because i want to, then i am not demonstrating moral worth. however, if i go visit my friend because of my duty and not because of my desire, then i have demonstrated moral worth. the thing that is disgusting is that if i'm the one in the hospital, my friend would be all like "i really don't want to fucking see you, in fact i hate you. but i have a duty to come visit. and i'm pretty much a morally superior person." you like these kind of people?
by the way, what is your obsession with the categorical imperative? please read more kant, you'll realize how it's just one small part of everything that he has written. saying that kant is primarily the CI is like saying that all aristotle ever did was ethics...
> are you joking?
I'm not joking I was being a sarcastic bastard because that fact is obvious. It is not in debate and is insulting that you eschew the burdon of answering any single moral question in the entire discussion about morality, by saying that it's what Kant thinks. Ironically like you said, Kant thinks a lot of things and so I was applying one of the core methodologies of determination of moral duty for a rational free-will individual.
> kant says that if i wish to go visit my friend in the hospital for his sake or because i want to, then i am not demonstrating moral worth.
That's debatable as I showed with my first response, using Kantian terminology. The key parts being 'for his sake', and 'because i want to' since the predication on those factors depends on whether it is in conflict with a CI or, a non moral worthiness because of it being a Hypothetical Imperative.
> the thing that is disgusting is that if i'm the one in the hospital, my friend would be all like "i really don't want to fucking see you, in fact i hate you. but i have a duty to come visit. and i'm pretty much a morally superior person."
What sort of friend would do that? It is debatable under Kantain determination whether it is even possible to hate a friend, or even make a duty that requires a person to see a friend they hate. Especially since both friends would be considered rational individuals with free will, and the undercurrent of Kant's philosophy is that one shouldn't use people as means. Even if you look at it from a deontological perspective, ends cannot justify the means. For example: I want to fulfill a duty of seeing a friend, this is my end -- but there is no justification for using his friend as a means to that end.
> you like these kind of people?
No, I don't like those people but that goes against the second categorical which is imperative. That brings us to what the duty is predicated on and to find that we also use CI's for determining if such is a true duty.
I can see that your representation of kant doesn't do justice how disgusting his morality is. If you really wanted to convince people of that repugnance you would break down the duty in the correct way if it is not via the CI, which I know to be the way to arrive at duty, and deontological ethics that Kant provides.
> by the way, what is your obsession with the categorical imperative? please read more kant, you'll realize how it's just one small part of everything that he has written.
It's not an obsession. What if not CI's determine what is right to will into action? You mentioned moral worth, a generalization that stifles the one you assumed me of making with CI's.
> saying that kant is primarily the CI is like saying that all aristotle ever did was ethics...
Can you be more constructive? I represented the CI, and I am not claiming that it is primary, it is relevant to what you're bringing up, hardly the same respect is reciprocated.
I'm not joking I was being a sarcastic bastard because that fact is obvious. It is not in debate and is insulting that you eschew the burdon of answering any single moral question in the entire discussion about morality, by saying that it's what Kant thinks. Ironically like you said, Kant thinks a lot of things and so I was applying one of the core methodologies of determination of moral duty for a rational free-will individual.
> kant says that if i wish to go visit my friend in the hospital for his sake or because i want to, then i am not demonstrating moral worth.
That's debatable as I showed with my first response, using Kantian terminology. The key parts being 'for his sake', and 'because i want to' since the predication on those factors depends on whether it is in conflict with a CI or, a non moral worthiness because of it being a Hypothetical Imperative.
> the thing that is disgusting is that if i'm the one in the hospital, my friend would be all like "i really don't want to fucking see you, in fact i hate you. but i have a duty to come visit. and i'm pretty much a morally superior person."
What sort of friend would do that? It is debatable under Kantain determination whether it is even possible to hate a friend, or even make a duty that requires a person to see a friend they hate. Especially since both friends would be considered rational individuals with free will, and the undercurrent of Kant's philosophy is that one shouldn't use people as means. Even if you look at it from a deontological perspective, ends cannot justify the means. For example: I want to fulfill a duty of seeing a friend, this is my end -- but there is no justification for using his friend as a means to that end.
> you like these kind of people?
No, I don't like those people but that goes against the second categorical which is imperative. That brings us to what the duty is predicated on and to find that we also use CI's for determining if such is a true duty.
I can see that your representation of kant doesn't do justice how disgusting his morality is. If you really wanted to convince people of that repugnance you would break down the duty in the correct way if it is not via the CI, which I know to be the way to arrive at duty, and deontological ethics that Kant provides.
> by the way, what is your obsession with the categorical imperative? please read more kant, you'll realize how it's just one small part of everything that he has written.
It's not an obsession. What if not CI's determine what is right to will into action? You mentioned moral worth, a generalization that stifles the one you assumed me of making with CI's.
> saying that kant is primarily the CI is like saying that all aristotle ever did was ethics...
Can you be more constructive? I represented the CI, and I am not claiming that it is primary, it is relevant to what you're bringing up, hardly the same respect is reciprocated.
i'm sick of this. no i can't be more constructive. you keep bringing up the categorical imperative like it is the end all for kant. it isn't. here, i went through the trouble of getting you the passage so you can see how kant doesn't even mention the CI.
<img src="http://www.wingedleopard.net/lucas/images/kant.gif" alt="kant is gross" />
I. Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Trans. H. J. Paton (1964), 66.
<img src="http://www.wingedleopard.net/lucas/images/kant.gif" alt="kant is gross" />
I. Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Trans. H. J. Paton (1964), 66.
> you keep bringing up the categorical imperative like it is the end all for kant. it isn't. here, i went through the trouble of getting you the passage so you can see how kant doesn't even mention the CI.
You're not listening to a word I'm saying apparently. I don't think it's the end-all. So you have your highest moral worth, which is that he does good, not because of random inclination or naturally implemented sympathy, but because it is his duty to do good.
That sure sounds disgusting. I think we should not question what duty constitutes. Even if it's what constitutes that which is good. So lets toss out the whole CI qualifier thing, and ignore the part that determines what is proper duty. Your derived examples are misrepresentative of true duty according to Kant. They do exemplify the moral worth scenario, although you put a spin on it by adding hate to the mix, and supposing that the individual is seeing their mother for duty reasoning, which isn't why one would attend means to an end.
Kant doesn't say you can make up a duty that follows no rules or moral qualities or qualifiers then hold those duties above all else. Do you think that Kant believes that duty can be arbitrarily constitute moral excellence? That's what you're effectively doing by tossing out that which is imperative to duty.
You're not listening to a word I'm saying apparently. I don't think it's the end-all. So you have your highest moral worth, which is that he does good, not because of random inclination or naturally implemented sympathy, but because it is his duty to do good.
That sure sounds disgusting. I think we should not question what duty constitutes. Even if it's what constitutes that which is good. So lets toss out the whole CI qualifier thing, and ignore the part that determines what is proper duty. Your derived examples are misrepresentative of true duty according to Kant. They do exemplify the moral worth scenario, although you put a spin on it by adding hate to the mix, and supposing that the individual is seeing their mother for duty reasoning, which isn't why one would attend means to an end.
Kant doesn't say you can make up a duty that follows no rules or moral qualities or qualifiers then hold those duties above all else. Do you think that Kant believes that duty can be arbitrarily constitute moral excellence? That's what you're effectively doing by tossing out that which is imperative to duty.
> They do exemplify the moral worth scenario, although you put a spin on it by adding hate to the mix, and supposing that the individual is seeing their mother for duty reasoning, which isn't why one would attend means to an end.
I am not putting any spin on it. Perhaps you should reference Kant's other examples.
> Kant doesn't say you can make up a duty that follows no rules or moral qualities or qualifiers then hold those duties above all else. Do you think that Kant believes that duty can be arbitrarily constitute moral excellence? That's what you're effectively doing by tossing out that which is imperative to duty.
What do you mean? I made up no duty. I was using his set of duties. Yes, Kant precisely states that following one's duties constitutes moral excellence. That is what he is trying to say, and that is what I was trying to say.
Take Michael Stocker's example: My relative is in the hospital. If I want to go see her and do so, by Kant's reasoning I demonstrate no moral worth. However, if I do not want to see her (say, for example, because I am lost in my own personal sorrow), but I realize that I have a duty to visit and act on that duty, then I am acting with moral content.
The point is that actions aren't determined good (with regard to moral content) on the basis of the actions themselves. They are only determined good if they produce no desire in the agent to act in such a way, but the agents acts in such a way for the sake of duty.
So the next time you're in the hospital, imagine a friend that comes to visit you and says:
"I really didn't want to visit you. But I recognized my moral duty as a Christian to come visit you in the hospital. In fact, Kant states in Groundwork that in doing so, I am demonstrating true moral excellence."
If I were you, I'd love my Kantian friends.
I am not putting any spin on it. Perhaps you should reference Kant's other examples.
> Kant doesn't say you can make up a duty that follows no rules or moral qualities or qualifiers then hold those duties above all else. Do you think that Kant believes that duty can be arbitrarily constitute moral excellence? That's what you're effectively doing by tossing out that which is imperative to duty.
What do you mean? I made up no duty. I was using his set of duties. Yes, Kant precisely states that following one's duties constitutes moral excellence. That is what he is trying to say, and that is what I was trying to say.
Take Michael Stocker's example: My relative is in the hospital. If I want to go see her and do so, by Kant's reasoning I demonstrate no moral worth. However, if I do not want to see her (say, for example, because I am lost in my own personal sorrow), but I realize that I have a duty to visit and act on that duty, then I am acting with moral content.
The point is that actions aren't determined good (with regard to moral content) on the basis of the actions themselves. They are only determined good if they produce no desire in the agent to act in such a way, but the agents acts in such a way for the sake of duty.
So the next time you're in the hospital, imagine a friend that comes to visit you and says:
"I really didn't want to visit you. But I recognized my moral duty as a Christian to come visit you in the hospital. In fact, Kant states in Groundwork that in doing so, I am demonstrating true moral excellence."
If I were you, I'd love my Kantian friends.
>What the hell does metaphysics have to do with the morality of talking to a mother at a hospital?
I would say that at the heart of all being lies a similar structure based on mathematics that requires certain variables and balances to be met by various tasks/combinations of larger groupings of the 'One' that everything would be derived from. Visiting one's mother in the hospital could easily satify part(s) of the grand equation and bring a sense of balance to the collected being performing the action. This, I believe would be the source of the 'happiness' that lucas has mentioned in earlier comments and the morality would come out of the balancing/unbalancing of the overall equation. Whether there can be an application of entropy to this type of system I have not yet decided. Although it would put an interesting spin on things (entropy being an eternal leaning towards good/evil, whichever you believe is more inherent in man.)
Take it how you will, but that definately makes me thing mother visits and metaphysics are more connected than many other things.
I would say that at the heart of all being lies a similar structure based on mathematics that requires certain variables and balances to be met by various tasks/combinations of larger groupings of the 'One' that everything would be derived from. Visiting one's mother in the hospital could easily satify part(s) of the grand equation and bring a sense of balance to the collected being performing the action. This, I believe would be the source of the 'happiness' that lucas has mentioned in earlier comments and the morality would come out of the balancing/unbalancing of the overall equation. Whether there can be an application of entropy to this type of system I have not yet decided. Although it would put an interesting spin on things (entropy being an eternal leaning towards good/evil, whichever you believe is more inherent in man.)
Take it how you will, but that definately makes me thing mother visits and metaphysics are more connected than many other things.