Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
My first impression... [View all]
about a thread in GD:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014441749
Ohio man who sexually assaulted baby seeks mercy
My first thought was the death penalty was too good for him. I am generally against the death penalty because I think killing people is wrong, but I think I could make an exception in this case. But as I considered the issue, I changed my mind and decided that life in prison was a more appropriate sentence. I changed my mind at least in part becasue I couldn't think of anything bad enough to do to the guy to adequately punish him for his crime.
So I was wondering which response to the news item was more valid, my initial emotional response or the more carefully considered one? Should one come before the other?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume
David Hume
Hume's views on human motivation and action formed the cornerstone of his ethical theory: he conceived moral or ethical sentiments to be intrinsically motivating, or the providers of reasons for action. Given that one cannot be motivated by reason alone, requiring the input of the passions, Hume argued that reason cannot be behind morality.
David Hume
Hume's views on human motivation and action formed the cornerstone of his ethical theory: he conceived moral or ethical sentiments to be intrinsically motivating, or the providers of reasons for action. Given that one cannot be motivated by reason alone, requiring the input of the passions, Hume argued that reason cannot be behind morality.
Morals excite passions, and produce or prevent actions. Reason itself is utterly impotent in this particular. The rules of morality, therefore, are not conclusions of our reason.[69]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant
Immanuel Kant
He believed that the moral law is a principle of reason itself, and is not based on contingent facts about the world, such as what would make us happy, but to act upon the moral law which has no other motive than "worthiness of being happy".[47] Accordingly, he believed that moral obligation applies only to rational agents.[48]
Immanuel Kant
He believed that the moral law is a principle of reason itself, and is not based on contingent facts about the world, such as what would make us happy, but to act upon the moral law which has no other motive than "worthiness of being happy".[47] Accordingly, he believed that moral obligation applies only to rational agents.[48]
| 0 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited | |
| David Hume feels about right. | |
0 (0%) |
|
| Immanuel Kant makes more sense. | |
0 (0%) |
|
| Emotions serve to support rational decisions. | |
0 (0%) |
|
| Rational decisions serve to frame our emotional responses. | |
0 (0%) |
|
| Wrong philosophers dummy. | |
0 (0%) |
|
| I vote, therefore I am. | |
0 (0%) |
|
| 0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
| Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
|
21 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read