display all the ideas for this combination of texts
6 ideas
9256 | I see the need to pay a debt in a particular instance, and any instance will do [Prichard] |
Full Idea: How can I be brought to see the truth of the principle of paying a debt except in connection with a particular instance? For this purpose any instance will do. If I cannot see that I ought to pay this debt, I shall not see that I ought to a debt. | |
From: H.A. Prichard (What is the Basis of Moral Obligation? [1925]) | |
A reaction: This isn't quite particularism, which would (I think) say that the degree of obligation will never be quite the same in any two situations, and so one instance will not suffice to understand the duty. |
9257 | The complexities of life make it almost impossible to assess morality from a universal viewpoint [Prichard] |
Full Idea: Owing to the complication of human relations, the problem of what one ought to do from the point of view of life as a whole is one of intense difficulty. | |
From: H.A. Prichard (What is the Basis of Moral Obligation? [1925]) | |
A reaction: I suspect that the difficulty is not the problems engendered by complexity, but that there is no answer available from the most objective point of view. Morality simply is a matter of how daily life is conducted, with medium-term goals only. |
23896 | We see our character as a restricting limit, but also as an unshakable support [Weil] |
Full Idea: Our character appears to us as a limit by which we do not want to be imprisoned, …but also as a support that we want to believe is unshakable. | |
From: Simone Weil (On the Concept of Character [1941], p.100) | |
A reaction: A nice perception. It is fairly easy to criticise, or even laugh at, one's own actions, but extremely hard to criticise our own character. Maybe we all wish we were more determined in our projects, but not much else. |
23894 | The concept of character is at the centre of morality [Weil] |
Full Idea: We cannot pose a moral problem without putting the concept of character at its centre. | |
From: Simone Weil (On the Concept of Character [1941], p.98) | |
A reaction: The question for Aristotle (which I derive from Philippa Foot) is whether moral goodness simply is good character, or whether it is the actions (or even the consequences). Weil is close to modern virtue theory here. |
23893 | We don't see character in a single moment, but only over a period of time [Weil] |
Full Idea: Character is constant over a period of time; the way a person is at a single moment does not at all reflect the character of this person. We do, however, concede that character changes. | |
From: Simone Weil (On the Concept of Character [1941], p.98) | |
A reaction: I do think, though, that there are moments in behaviour which are hugely revealing of character, even in a single remark. But I agree that most single moments do not show much. |
23895 | We modify our character by placing ourselves in situations, or by attending to what seems trivial [Weil] |
Full Idea: We can modify our character, by putting ourselves in circumstances that will act on us from the outside, …or by the orientation of our attention in the moments that appear most insignificant or indifferent in our lives. | |
From: Simone Weil (On the Concept of Character [1941], p.99) | |
A reaction: I've never seen anyone address this question (apart from Aristotle's emphasis on training habits). Choosing your source for current affairs information strikes me as very important. What you read, what you watch, who you spend time with… |