cordless phones panasonic
Dect 6.0
Related Topics:
cordless phones panasonic
cordless phone
panasonic cordless phone
Panasonic
headsets
cordless phones
telephone
telephones
panasonic phone
cordless phone battery
cordless
headset
phones
Uniden
plantronics
headphone
corded phone
phone
AT&T
corded phones
electronics
5.8 Ghz
dect 6.0
phone accessories
Panasonic phones
digital cordless phones
digital cordless phone
phone system
dect
phone battery
cordless telephones
Philips phones
philips fax
Polycom
Samsung
Reviews
RCA
comparison
computer
projectors
|
Dect 6.0 cordless phones panasonic
.
Dect 6.0 cordless phones panasonic Information
What is a moral? This is a question that has plagued philosophers for many
years. Is it possible
to have a set of universal morals? There are many
questions that surround the mystery of morals. They
seem to drive our every
action. We base our decisions on what is right and what is wrong. But what is it
that actually determines what is right and what is wrong? Is it our sense of
reason? Is it our sense of
sentiment? This is a question that David Hume
spent much of his life pondering. What exactly is it that
drives our
actions? Yes, morals drive them, but what determines what our morals are? What
is it that
ultimately drives our actions; our feelings or our minds?
Hume would say that it is our sentiment that ultimately drives our actions.
According to Hume,
reason is incapable of motivating an action. According to
Hume, reason cannot fuel an action and
therefore cannot motivate it. Hume
feel that all actions are motivated by our sentiment. For example, on
page
84 Appendix I, he gives the example of a criminal. "It resides in the mind of
the person, who is
ungrateful. He must, therefore, feel it, and be conscious
of it." Here, it is evident that Hume is saying that
unless the person, or
criminal in this case, sincerely believes in what he wants to do, he will not be
able to
motivate the action. In other words, unless the sentiment is there,
the action cannot be willed into being.
Hence, the sentiment is the driving
force behind the action.
Hume does not however say that reason is incapable
of determining wether an action is virtuous
or vicious (moral or immoral),
but instead he tries to say that the reason for the morality of an action does
not dictate the execution or perversion of an act so far as determination of
wether the action is executed
or not. In simpler terms, reason has it's
place in determining morality, but it is not in the motivation of an
action.
Motivation must come from the heart, or better yet, from within the person; from
their beliefs.
Reason merely allows the person to make moral distinctions.
Without reason, there would be no morality.
Without reason, one moral clause
would not be differentiable from another. That is to say that below all
morals, there must be some underlying truth because "Truth is disputable;
not taste" (p.14). If truth were
not disputable, there would be no way to
prove that a truth was just that... a truth. To make an analogy to
mathematics, truth is a function of reason, whereas taste is a function of
sentiment. Sentiment is a
function of the individual whereas reason is a
function of the universe.
The universe as a whole must follow reason, but
the catch is that each individual's universe is
slightly different in that
each individual perceives his or her universe differently. "What each man feels
within himself is the standard of sentiment." (p.14) That is to say each
person's individual universe has
truths. These truths are based on reason.
These truths/reasons are what help to determine the person's
sentiment.
However, it should be noted that because the reasons are NOT necessarily the
person's
sentiments, they do not motivate actions. One other reason why
reason does not impel action is because
reason is based on truths. Truths
are never changing whereas sentiments are dynamic and are in a
constant
change of flux. At one moment, the criminal could feel sympathy for his victims
and decide to
spare a life, and the very next, the same criminal could
become enraged at the pimple on a hostage's
forehead and shoot him.
Of
course these are extreme cases, but the point is clear. Reason would dictate
that only the first
action would be moral. If reason drove actions, then
moral behavior would prevail and there would be no
immoral actions and hence
there would be no crimes. This shows how sentiments can change as the
individual's perception of the universe changes. Obviously, the driving
force behind the criminal shooting
the victim because of a skin blemish is
not one based on reason, but instead it is based on feeling, emotion,
sentiment. Although it is an abstract idea and a seemingly tiny
technicality, it is easy to see that indeed
reason is not the ultimate
motivator but instead sentiment is. ][][
Return-Path:
From:
To:
Subject: School Sucks
The following form
contents were entered on 19th Dec 96
Date = 19 Dec 96 03:24:49
subject =
School Sucks
resulturl = http://www.schoolsucks.com/thanks/
name = Samir
Sandesara
email = sgs135@psu.edu
publish = no
subject = Philosophy,
Hume
title = An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals
papers = An
Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals
What is a moral? This is a
question that has plagued philosophers for many years. Is it possible
to
have a set of universal morals? There are many questions that surround the
mystery of morals. They
seem to drive our every action. We base our
decisions on what is right and what is wrong. But what is it
that actually
determines what is right and what is wrong? Is it our sense of reason? Is it our
sense of
sentiment? This is a question that David Hume spent much of his
life pondering. What exactly is it that
drives our actions? Yes, morals
drive them, but what determines what our morals are? What is it that
ultimately drives our actions; our feelings or our minds?
Hume would say
that it is our sentiment that ultimately drives our actions. According to Hume,
reason is incapable of motivating an action. According to Hume, reason
cannot fuel an action and
therefore cannot motivate it. Hume feel that all
actions are motivated by our sentiment. For example, on
page 84 Appendix I,
he gives the example of a criminal. "It resides in the mind of the person, who
is
ungrateful. He must, therefore, feel it, and be conscious of it." Here,
it is evident that Hume is saying that
unless the person, or criminal in
this case, sincerely believes in what he wants to do, he will not be able to
motivate the action. In other words, unless the sentiment is there, the
action cannot be willed into being.
Hence, the sentiment is the driving
force behind the action.
Hume does not however say that reason is incapable
of determining wether an action is virtuous
or vicious (moral or immoral),
but instead he tries to say that the reason for the morality of an action does
not dictate the execution or perversion of an act so far as determination of
wether the action is executed
or not. In simpler terms, reason has it's
place in determining morality, but it is not in the motivation of an
action.
Motivation must come from the heart, or better yet, from within the person; from
their beliefs.
Reason merely allows the person to make moral distinctions.
Without reason, there would be no morality.
Without reason, one moral clause
would not be differentiable from another. That is to say that below all
morals, there must be some underlying truth because "Truth is disputable;
not taste" (p.14). If truth were
not disputable, there would be no way to
prove that a truth was just that... a truth. To make an analogy to
mathematics, truth is a function of reason, whereas taste is a function of
sentiment. Sentiment is a
function of the individual whereas reason is a
function of the universe.
The universe as a whole must follow reason, but
the catch is that each individual's universe is
slightly different in that
each individual perceives his or her universe differently. "What each man feels
within himself is the standard of sentiment." (p.14) That is to say each
person's individual universe has
truths. These truths are based on reason.
These truths/reasons are what help to determine the person's
sentiment.
However, it should be noted that because the reasons are NOT necessarily the
person's
sentiments, they do not motivate actions. One other reason why
reason does not impel action is because
reason is based on truths. Truths
are never changing whereas sentiments are dynamic and are in a
constant
change of flux. At one moment, the criminal could feel sympathy for his victims
and decide to
spare a life, and the very next, the same criminal could
become enraged at the pimple on a hostage's
forehead and shoot him.
Of
course these are extreme cases, but the point is clear. Reason would dictate
that only the first
action would be moral. If reason drove actions, then
moral behavior would prevail and there would be no
immoral actions and hence
there would be no crimes. This shows how sentiments can change as the
individual's perception of the universe changes. Obviously, the driving
force behind the criminal shooting
the victim because of a skin blemish is
not one based on reason, but instead it is based on feeling, emotion,
sentiment. Although it is an abstract idea and a seemingly tiny
technicality, it is easy to see that indeed
reason is not the ultimate
motivator but instead sentiment is.
|
