play the game, man i foul it
6 Matching Annotations
- Jul 2025
-
Local file Local file
-
- Nov 2024
-
www.utilitarianism.com www.utilitarianism.com
-
When we engage in a pursuit, a clear and precise conception of what we are pursuing would seem to be the first thing we need, instead of the last we are to look forward to. A test of right and wrong must be the means, one would think, of ascertaining what is right or wrong, and not a consequence of having already ascertained it.
when we are deciding on what action we would like to take, it is interesting that we simply evaluate what it is we would like to do based on the end result that we are desiring to achieve; why do we not stop and think about the means we would be using to attain this end in specific, and whether or not it is okay for us to do so? why is it that we achieve the end (or attempt to) and discover the true value of the means we used to achieve or attempt !?
-
the contrary might be expected to be the case with a practical art, such as morals or legislation
in philosophy, or any science of thought for that matter, we did not originally establish what it is we would like to think about, what are probelms will be, etc. but instead, we discovered these things through evolution and interaction with one another, and then went on to define and outline our problems, our moral codes, and so on...
-
It is true that similar confusion and uncertainty, and in some cases similar discordance, exist respecting the first principles of all the sciences, not excepting that which is deemed the most certain of them, mathematics; without much impairing, generally indeed without impairing at all, the trustworthiness of the conclusions of those sciences
here, mill is talking about how the first principles of the different sciences (first principles are essentially the foundations, the laywork, the building blocks of all of the conclusions that are then derived from them, without the principles, nothing else would be able to exist) still garner relative discord among researchers and scientists about what exactly it could be deemed to be- and yet, the sciences are able to operate just as efficiently, even without full consensus
-
the question concerning the summum bonum, or, what is the same thing, concerning the foundation of morality
understanding that "summum bonum" is a word that is to denote the theoretical concept of a subject or object that is the highest good that all people should strive for, how would this be the foundation of morality? revisit --
-
THERE ARE few circumstances among those which make up the present condition of human knowledge, more unlike what might have been expected, or more significant of the backward state in which speculation on the most important subjects still lingers, than the little progress which has been made in the decision of the controversy respecting the criterion of right and wrong.
i mean, truly, the subject of whether something can be deemed right or wrong will forever (in my opinion) differ person-to-person within humankind because our judgements and moral schemas are simply results of our environmental upbrings and what we have seen, interacted with, and hold to be true- learning about this in psychology
-