h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

*giggle*

Me and one of my more dappy friends were discussing that the other day- Am I holding the pen, or is the pen holding me<?>

It was funny at the time....

I'm sure it was

We get very bored in english lessons

How can you get bored in ENglish Lessons? They are the best!

OK, even I dont believe that! What books are you doing?

I love english lessons, I really do. I just managed to get the worst english teacher this time around, methinks.
We're doing Romeo and Juliet. And I appear to be the only one who gets it. No fair!

I hate R&J! Macbeth is sooo much better!

Hamlet gets my vote.
And I love the Shakespeare bits in "Weird Sisters."

Noggin

I havent read hamlet...but want to: my current 'play of the moment' is definitely Duchess of Malfi by John Webster: its got it all incest, murder, intrigue and unripe apricots...

...Also read Othello: like Iago, hated everyone else [excpet Emilia!]

Sorry to jump back to this point, but it's an aspect that seems to have been missed. A utilitarian would say that a good action which makes the agent feel good is even better than if it didn't cause that feeling. The sum of benefits is more greatly increased, and who benefits doesn't matter (with certain provisos).

A Kantian would say that an action should be done out of a sense of duty rather than a desire to feel good. But that is what makes for the rightness of the action rather than it's goodness. It might be right to punish someone, but is it good?

More questions than answers as usual I'm afraid.

Good to see ye Toxxin

I suppose to answer the question, you must first define what 'good' and 'evil' actually are... which we should have done prior to the drift!

I, myself am most comfortable with the Situation Ethics definition of doing the most loving thing, which in itself has it's pitfalls...

... but regardless of how you see good and evil, is it possible to perform an action which is solely good or solely evil? If this cannot occur, then what does this mean for the values of good and evil?

FwT: being good and getting back on topic

I reckon that whether an action could be 'purely' good or evil would depend on the situation, not on our choice. eg: the dilemma that if we shoot one of our party, our captors will not kill the lot of us. No purely good alternatives offer themselves, so the utilitarian takes the lesser evil, the Kantian sticks by his duty not to murder anyone.

That last thought is an example of two theories of what 'right' and 'wrong' are anyway. 'Good' and 'evil' tend to be less discussed or used as terms in the analysis of right and wrong.

I always have to laugh when people talk about teaching children the difference between right and wrong. I know what people mean but I still have to chuckle

Oh, I have no obsession with ontopicness. It's just my fault for coming to this thread late and finding that the most interesting point of contention.

'The most loving thing' has nothing BUT pitfalls unfortunately! It might just work if you were God or an angel. Do you love all equally; evildoers and little children? Aren't you just acting in their self-interest instead of your own, and how is that an improvement? Did you say 'comfortable'? You're too young to be comfortable yet, and what you have there is a can of worms

Sit Ethics is based on agape: non-preferential love, which narrows the pitfalls in a way, but also creates otehrs!

It may be a can of worms: but I'm opening it! And don't you dare bring age and experience into it: 'cos you'll lose!

FwT

For shame FwT! Would I make any claim based on anything other than the arguments I adduce? Not that I mind losing, it's fun! I see another problem if all (including yourself) are to be equally loved. Who gets the last Rolo? Otherwise known as 'Do you rescue the physician who's about to invent a practically no-cost cure/vaccine for malaria/HIV, or your parent/child?'. Are other types of love overlaid on this 'agape', and do they affect your judgements? Can you recommend a good paper available online about this. In the meantime, I'll have a Google. Or should I have said 'I'll go ogle some other stuff'?!

This is a common pitfall associated with Situation Ethics, but you name any ethical theory [which I have studied ] and I will name several weaknesses: but I see Sit ethics as a positive theory, which makes a hell of a lot of sense.

I think that Fletcher [Joseph] created this as an ideal, realising that it is too much for humans to do this, but is something to aspire too: much like why Catholics have Saints: something to aspire to.

The best resource I can think of off-hand is Peter Vardy's 'Puzzle of Ethics' it really is a good book [so are his luctures!] You may however, want to have a look at philosophers.co.uk this is a god-send for resources, and also has natty little games to play!

Thanx 4 da references, FwT. So far, what I've found seems to suggest that SE is much the same as act utilitarianism, especially as expounded by Rawls in his 'Theory of Justice'. I've also found some rather poor explanations of it by Christians. To be fair, they're probably Christians first and philosophers only second, if that!

S'OK: I'd read Vardy though, as his book is really quite all-encompassing: I'd lend you my copy if it weren't for the fact that I don't know where you live

You should be able to get it off the library, or a book shop, or if not amazon...

S'ok! There are differences: it's best to read Vardy's book: it's all-encompassing! YOu can get it probably from a library, or definitely from a book shop, or amazon: I'd lend you my copy if it weren't for virtual differences

I don't think there's any one all encompassing theory of ethics, any more than there is for history; conspiracy, cock-up, great men, historical materialism, etc., history embraces all of them in some degree. Ethics is much the same; duty, compassion, love, utility all go into the mix.

Noggin

Well, the meta-ethical approach I go for is that of Rawls. I accept that we need at least two theories of truth (for example), but here the Rawls approach might just have it, bar some fine-tuning maybe. I know you're generally a Kantian, Noggin, but for me the categorical imperative and acting out of duty pull in opposite directions.