Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

9758Re: Choosing and Reason

Expand Messages
  • SKIBO79
    Oct 10, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      I think that Sartre did a good job to see that choices are neither
      rational or irrational. Each choice that we make , for me, comes to
      the decision on if life is worth living or it isn't. We can see say
      that neither one can ever be made without a subjective faith. Who's
      to say that life is important or isn't. That's why Sartre says that
      life is absurd, and therefore, so is death. A consequentialist
      viewpoint is only taking in some types of variables, but these
      variables are based on what WE THINK is beneficial. Then those
      things are traced to other events that we would see are beneficial,
      ad infinitum to we get to the same idea, is life worth living
      (should I continue breathing or not). Therefore, consequentialism
      becomes personal decision, which is what Sartre tried to get at
      anyway. If you think that utilitarian ideas are superior over other
      ways of morality, isn't that a personal decision, I think so, which
      I just showed.

      Brian
      --- In existlist@y..., "james tan" <tyjfk@h...> wrote:
      >
      > "the question still remains why would one want to adopt such a
      morality"
      >
      >
      > ur answer emphasise on the WHY but my emphasis was on the SUCH or
      why this
      > particular morality. i know tt morality theory is to help making
      moral
      > decision. pretty obvious, isnt it?
      >
      > james.
      >
      >
      > From: "Christopher Bobo" <cbobo@m...>
      > Reply-To: WisdomForum@y...
      > To: "Wisdom Forum" <WisdomForum@y...>
      > Subject: Re: [WisdomForum] Re: Choosing and Reason
      > Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 20:06:51 -0700
      >
      > James said:
      > >>the
      > question still remains why would one want to adopt such a
      morality.<<
      >
      > Obviously, to make moral decisions.
      >
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: james tan
      > Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 12:48 AM
      > To: WisdomForum@y...
      > Subject: [WisdomForum] Re: Choosing and Reason
      >
      >
      > chris said:
      > "if he had employed a consequentialist morality, the problem may
      have been
      > resolvable through a rational method of decision."
      >
      > but this begs the question. it is not so much tt sartre did not
      think of the
      > consequences as in what kind of consequences one wants, which
      bring us back
      > to values. and if there is such a thing as a consequentialist
      morality, the
      > question still remains why would one want to adopt such a morality.
      >
      > james.
      >
      > From: "Christopher Bobo" <cbobo@m...>
      > Reply-To: WisdomForum@y...
      > To: "Wisdom Forum" <WisdomForum@y...>
      > Subject: Re: [WisdomForum] Re: Choosing and Reason
      > Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 22:48:24 -0700
      >
      > It is also noteworthy that Sartre considers the problem from
      essentially
      > only a deontological point of view. He compares Christian with
      Kantian
      > values and concludes that they do not resolve the conflict and that
      > therefore there is no rational way to resolve the conflict.
      However, if he
      > had employed a consequentialist morality, the problem may have been
      > resolvable through a rational method of decision. The utilitarian
      would
      > have chosen that course of action which maximizes the greatest
      amount of
      > happiness for the most number of people. If the choice is between
      making
      > only one person (the mother) happy as opposed to making many
      people (say the
      > village that one might liberate as a member of the French Army in
      exile)
      > happy, the choice would be clear and that would be a rational way
      of
      > deciding what to do. And, even approaching the issue from a
      > non-consequentialist point of view that focuses on say "what we
      care about",
      > the problem can enriched by considering some of the additional
      factors that
      > SWM points out. Can the mother get along without the son, or
      would she die
      > if he went off to fight? Do the students peers want him to join
      them, and
      > thereby make a unit of true comrades? Perhaps here Sartre has
      really
      > exaggerated the importance of making an unprincipled or radical
      choice.
      > There appears to be substantial reason to think that Sartre has
      given up on
      > reason far too soon.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > _________________________________________________________________
      > Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device:
      http://mobile.msn.com
    • Show all 29 messages in this topic