discussion between philosopher and anti-philosopher
This paper is an attempt at a philosophical dialogue between Justin who represents the ideas of the philosopher, and Jim the ever present anti-philosopher. Justin believes that the study of philosophical ethics is a worth while way of life to pursue. The study and questioning of peoples and societies moral values and ethical standards are more than just a worthwhile, moreover they are vital to society. Jim believes that the study of philosophical ethics is at best a waist of time, and is at least, dangerous. He is sort of confused about what sorts of things philosophers see as moral, and how we depend on culture to judge what is moral and what is not. Because what is moral to one culture could be immoral to another culture.Jim: I think that philosophical ethics are a waist of time at best, and should be considered dangerous!Justin: Well you're allowed you're own opinion as ethics being a waist of time, but let me tell you why I think it is such an important part of society todayJustin: Philosophical ethics is the study of morality. Why actions are moral, not only in the physical act, but also in the reasons behind the act. Why the act was committed. Also, if there is such a thing as a mor
But at the same time, we kill in mass, and atleast as far as veil is concerned, a lion on the great plains of Africa is not going to grow a cow, and take it's babies and put it in a pen to grow, and kill later when it is ready. They all seem to contradict one another and or clearly state what the universal principal should be if in fact there is one, instead they are complicated and confusing. I guess it can be all brought back to the golden rule. You don't think that the slaughter of animals is justified? Do you think that it is immoral for one species to consume another species if it's higher on the food chain? It's survival of the fittest, and quite frankly we hold all the cards, as far as cows are concerned. Would you like it all to much if every time you had a baby, some one took it away from you, and serve it up as food? Not likely. Justin: But what is the difference between that, and what is normally served as beef. Their heads are restrained, they are in small cages, and are taken away from there mothers at a very early age. Jim: Yea, but each philosophers come up with their own ideas, and no universal perfect truth as a product from all that discussion. However if you take there points of view, one will notice an underlying common ethical value. I do however admit that it is hard for people to describe what they know their morality is. How great can there minds be? How much trauma can it really be bringing upon them? Justin: Who are you to be able to tell how much pain another is feeling? I could be really hurting right now, and you would have no idea about how much, or for that matter even why. We have studied Kant and his Categorical Imperative, to Bentham's Principle of Utility. Jim: But at the same time, the complexities of our lives are much greater than that of a cow.
Common topics in this essay:
Jim Ok,
,
Justin Philosophical,
Kant Bentham,
Jim Yea,
Principle Utility,
philosophical ethics,
ethics waist,
Jim Alright,
animals treated,
philosophical ethics waist,
study philosophical ethics,
believes study philosophical,
society jim,
cows concerned,
study philosophical,
believes study,
moral code,
serving purpose,
|
Acceptance Essays
