Happy Happy |
Here are the general forum rules that you must follow before you start any debate topics. Please make sure you've read and followed all directions.
Happy Happy |
![]()
Post
#1
|
|
![]() i did your boyfriend ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Official Designer Posts: 3,335 Joined: Feb 2004 Member No: 4,071 ![]() |
Should the happiness of others be the primary motivator for moral action?
|
|
|
![]() |
![]()
Post
#2
|
|
![]() in the reverb chamber. ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 4,022 Joined: Nov 2005 Member No: 300,308 ![]() |
It's sort of an irrelevant question given my philosophical "understanding" of "human nature." I'm an adherent of selfism and psychological egoism - I think all men act in self-interest and are incapable to treat, as Kant proposed as a criteria for truly "moral action," other human beings as an end as opposed to a means. So, since all people have the primary concern of of themselves, they couldn't even act in order, merely, to ensure the happiness of others.
Secondly, happiness is a very ambiguous and broad term. To revolve any moral theory around such an idea is an effort in futility. And, lastly, the question is even more irrelevant given my stance of amoralism. If you don't believe in morality in the first place, the question is sort of meaningless. And, even if you do believe in morality, I would argue the question is still meaningless - y'all just don't realize it yet. |
|
|
![]() ![]() |