|
7999
|
All actions come from: body, lower self, perception, means of action, or Fate [Anon (Bhag)]
|
|
Full Idea:
Whatever a man does, good or bad, in thought, word or deed, has these five sources of action: the body, the lower 'I am', the means of perception, the means of action, and Fate.
|
|
From:
Anon (Bhag) (The Bhagavad Gita [c.500 BCE], 18.14/15)
|
|
A reaction:
The 'means of action' will presumably take care of anything we haven't thought of! Nothing quite matches the idea of 'the will' here. A twitch from the first, eating from the second, a startled jump from the third, struck by lightning from the fifth.
|
|
4125
|
Hare says I acquire an agglomeration of preferences by role-reversal, leading to utilitarianism [Hare, by Williams,B]
|
|
Full Idea:
In Hare's theory I apply a "role-reversal test", and then acquire an actual agglomeration of preferences that apply to the hypothetical situation. The result is utilitarianism.
|
|
From:
report of Richard M. Hare (Moral Thinking: Its Levels,Method and Point [1981]) by Bernard Williams - Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy Ch.5
|
|
A reaction:
It hits that traditional stumbling block, of why I should care about the preferences of others. Pure reason and empathy are the options (Kant or Hume). I may, however, lack both.
|
|
4126
|
If we have to want the preferences of the many, we have to abandon our own deeply-held views [Williams,B on Hare]
|
|
Full Idea:
Hare's version of utilitarianism requires an agent to abandon any deeply held principle or conviction if a large enough aggregate of contrary preferences, of whatever kind, favours a contrary action.
|
|
From:
comment on Richard M. Hare (Moral Thinking: Its Levels,Method and Point [1981]) by Bernard Williams - Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy Ch.5
|
|
A reaction:
This nicely attacks any impersonal moral theory, whether it is based on reason or preferences. But where did my personal ideals come from?
|
|
4127
|
If morality is to be built on identification with the preferences of others, I must agree with their errors [Williams,B on Hare]
|
|
Full Idea:
If there is to be total identification with others, then if another's preferences are mistaken, the preferences I imagine myself into are equally mistaken, and if 'identification' is the point, they should remain mistaken.
|
|
From:
comment on Richard M. Hare (Moral Thinking: Its Levels,Method and Point [1981]) by Bernard Williams - Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy Ch.5
|
|
A reaction:
Yes. The core of morality must be judgement. Robots can implement universal utilitarian rules, but they could end up promoting persecutions of minorities.
|
|
22483
|
A judgement is presciptive if we expect it to be acted on [Hare]
|
|
Full Idea:
We say something prescriptive if and only if, for some act A, some situation S and some person R, if P were to assent (orally) to what we say, and not, in S, do A, he logically must be assenting insincerely.
|
|
From:
Richard M. Hare (Moral Thinking: Its Levels,Method and Point [1981], p.21), quoted by Philippa Foot - Does Moral Subjectivism Rest on a Mistake? p.190
|
|
A reaction:
Foot offers this as Hare's most explicit definition. The use of algebra strikes me as ludicrous. In logic letters have the virtue of not shifting their meaning during an argument, but that is not required here.
|
|
7992
|
The visible forms of nature are earth, water, fire, air, ether; mind, reason, and the sense of 'I' [Anon (Bhag)]
|
|
Full Idea:
The visible forms of nature are eight: earth, water, fire, air, ether; the mind, reason, and the sense of 'I'.
|
|
From:
Anon (Bhag) (The Bhagavad Gita [c.500 BCE], 7.4)
|
|
A reaction:
Presumably there is an implication that there are also invisible forms. The Bhuddists launched an attack on 'I' as one of the categories. The first five appear to be Aristotle's, which must be of scholarly (and chronological) interest.
|
|
7997
|
Only by love can men see me, know me, and come to me, says Krishna [Anon (Bhag)]
|
|
Full Idea:
Only by love can men see me, and know me, and come unto me, says Krishna
|
|
From:
Anon (Bhag) (The Bhagavad Gita [c.500 BCE], 11.54)
|
|
A reaction:
There seems to be a paradox here, as it is unclear how you can love Krishna, if you have not already seen him in some way. This is another paradox of fideism - that faith cannot possibly be the first step in a religion, as faith needs a target.
|
|
7998
|
The three gates of hell are lust, anger and greed [Anon (Bhag)]
|
|
Full Idea:
Three are the gates of this hell, the death of the soul: the gate of lust, the gate of wrath, and the gate of greed. Let a man shun the three.
|
|
From:
Anon (Bhag) (The Bhagavad Gita [c.500 BCE], 16.21)
|
|
A reaction:
Anyone who wishes to procreate, champion justice, and make a living, has to pursue all three. Wisdom consists of pursuing the three appropriately, not in shunning them. How did this bizarre puritanism ever come to grip the human race?
|