Moral_philosophy

Summary As was the fashion in 1759, Adam Smith endeavors to explain what we call right and wrong, as well as why we arrive at these conclusions. The cornerstone of his theory is based on the concept of sympathy. Smith posits that, just as humans are endowed with the sense of sight, they are also equipped with a sense of sympathy. The brief definition of sympathy is the ability for one human to “enter into” the experience of another. This “entering in” does not perfectly mirror the original experience, but critically, it is perceived through the lens of an impartial spectator. This impartiality forms the foundation of all morality. ...

Summary Socrates has just been charged with impiety and is preparing for his trial, which will ultimately lead to his execution. He encounters Euthyphro, one of the few people in Greece whom Socrates has not yet alienated. Socrates quickly remedies this oversight. Euthyphro is on his way to court to accuse his own father of murder. His father had owned a slave who murdered another slave, and in response, Euthyphro’s father ordered the guilty slave to be bound and thrown into a ditch while he sent messengers to officials to determine the appropriate legal action. Before the messengers returned, the slave died from exposure. According to Athenian law, murder charges are typically allowed only by relatives of the victim. This accusation would have been considered highly impious by Euthyphro’s society; therefore, he must be highly confident in his understanding of “goodness” and his ability to convince a court of his definition. Socrates, himself about to be tried, uses his circumstances as a casus belli to challenge Euthyphro’s confidence. Socrates initially asks Euthyphro a simple question: “What is goodness?” Euthyphro responds that it is to do what God has ordered, as that is pleasing to God. Through dialogue, this definition is shown to have hidden assumptions, which leads Socrates to pose another seemingly innocent question that creates a truly thought-provoking dilemma for those inclined to ponder it: “Is the good loved by the gods because it is good, or is it good because it is loved by the gods?” ...

I read this book after seeing it tangentially referenced in the “Doors of Perspective”. Written as the forward states in response to the short story by William Blake, C.S Lewis sets out to refute the idea of Hell and Heaven being made of the same stuff. Or put in more general terms this is his refutation of the concept of non-duality. Instead of using arguments he chooses to use story as a device to get his points across. In this story the main character takes a bus ride from what turns out to be hell to a place that turns out to be heaven, or more accurately a place of transition to heaven. Upon arrival he eventually runs into George MacDonald, and MacDonald acts much like Virgil did in Dante’s inferno and guides the main character through this new and foreign place. What unfolds is a series of vignettes where the residents of heaven would interact with old friends from hell and try to convince them in various ways to “see the light”. The main points of these small exchanges are that each person chooses to keep themselves in hell and out of “eternal joy”. Like other C.S Lewis stories I’ve read his strongest talent is his ability to spot and succinctly point out deficiencies in character. Especially of the self-righteous. Every time I read any of his stories, I feel self-conscious of some way in which I am acting selfishly or harming others with my choices. If you ever read any of his works, you’ll know exactly what I mean. This is a weak point in secular philosophy (IMO) because it is difficult to justify telling someone to alter their behavior without the authority of a metaphysic behind you. Lewis continually manages to thread the needle between intellect and faith in a compelling way that is difficult to ignore. That being said I don’t really feel like this book did much in the way of addressing some of the more difficult questions about hell and heaven. It did a fantastic job of shedding a light on how even good things like love and pity can be twisted into bad things. But in the stories people continually chose hell and their own misery over the joy they were created to experience, but the question of whether or not there was actually a “choice” to begin with is a slippery slope which leads to a lot of other complications. That being said this is a short read and does give the reader plenty of things to think about and is definitely worth the read. ...