Uploader Comments (stefbot)
All Comments (10)
-
look like you've lost weight since you became a full-time philosopher. another benefit to philosophy :)
-
I'm not saying I agree with him I just was pointing that out. Obviously I agree with your logic.
-
The guy in the letter said over all happiness Stef.
-
I just bought the book, so dont worry about having to explain anything for now. :) I'll post after I read.
-
I'm not criticizing, as I clearly do not possess the wisdom or knowledge to do so, but would just like to know how you would defend it, or did try to defend it in this video.
-
( I say this in a good way) was in PDF form so I could go back and read in detail, but from just one view I couldn't understand fully how you defended the view of non-consequentialism and deontologism, although I understood clearly your defense for happiness as not being a universal principle or goal in moral philosophy.
-
Although this is the first video I've viewed among many others you have posted, it seems as if, from all the analogies, that you too prefer the legalist approach, but like Kant, are deontological, and believe in objective principles. I wish this "lecture"
-
I have not yet "completed" a moral philosophy course, but it seems as if the person who wrote the post was an axeological consequentialist, who believes in moral legalism. I'm assuming confidently that you are a professor, so no one can ever know certainly what approach or approaches you defend.
removing the barriers to your achievement of happiness by such means as say... threatening the prospect of eternal damnation if you don't conform to a specific doctrine?
sleepyeyeguy 4 years ago
Yeah, that would be pretty important! That threat is all about power and control, not happiness...
stefbot 4 years ago