Question by Andrea S: Is this evaluation of the views of different philosophers correct?
Heres the question….How would the statement,“Sell all you have and give to the poor” be evaluated according to Kant’s ethics? What would Mill say about it? What would Kierkegaard say? What would Nietzsche say? What would Sartre say?

and the following is my answer….please give me advice and constructive critisism to make it better if need be… I realize its just kind of a rough draft, but its late and I just needed to get the majority of the answer done….(also i don’t need help with grammar and stuff even though its not good right now…. I just really want someone to evaluate whether my answer sounds good!)

According to Kant’s ethics when we do something we mustn’t do it because of personal preferences, or from gaining or loosing from moral calculations. Kant believes that we can only receive moral credit when we follow the moral law. Kant believed that the moral value of something is always determined by the principle. This basically means if you mean well then no matter what happens you are worthy of praise. But, the most important part of Kant’s philosophy when it comes to this question is what he calls categorical imperative which means that we should only act if we think the principle/statement should apply to all people. This being said I believe that Kant would not agree with this statement. If all people gave all their money to the poor we would end up no better off, in fact the world would be in the same situation that it was in before. Also, I believe that Kant would argue that not all people should receive large amounts of money because they may not be able to handle it well. Basically because this statement should not apply to everyone he would not agree. But if somebody did do it with good intentions then they are worthy of praise and if they did it with bad intentions, for example to keep the money away from their ex, then he would find it appalling.
If someone asked what Mill thought of this statement he would have a different answer than Kant. Mill believed that the only people who could determine if a something was better or worse were people who experienced both pleasures. Mill most likely would have argued that there is no way of knowing whether having more money is better or worse, so if we give all our money to the poor to help them or make them happier, it may not be worth it because it may not make them happier. Also, Mill would have looked at this question and tried to be as impartial as possible. He believed in the greater good for the majority of the population. He would have looked at this question and realized that this would not help the greater good of the population because the rich would now become poor and the problem would still remain, making the situation no better that it was before.
Kierkegaard would also have a different way of analyzing this question. Kierkegaard believed in something which he called the ‘crowd’. He believed that modern people had become dull and mediocre because of their constant striving to be like everyone else. This is what he referred to as the crowd and most likely Kierkegaard would have seen this statement as a way for the poor to be like the rich and follow what the experts think should be done. He would also realize that once the poor received the money that the new poor class would then strive to be like the rich, or the ‘crowd’ Kierkegaard would not have favored this statement because he would feel was brought on by the evermore increasingly dull modern society.
Nietzsche’s reaction to this statement would be different yet again. Nietzsche believed that moral codes reduce our passions and they only replicate the desires and perspectives of those who make them. Thus, Nietzsche would not have felt have any moral duty to give to the poor. He also would say that this statement is the weak trying to convince the powerful that they need to take care of them something which he referred to as slave morality. So in the end Nietzche would not agree with this statement.

Finally, Sartre would evaluate this statement by referring to his believe that we are all condemned to be free. Sartre believed that everyone was free to choice what they want. He would state that the poor chose to be poor and the rich chose to be rich. Ultimately, Sartre would blame the poor for their social situation and would not feel sorry for them. Sartre would not agree with this statement.

Best answer:

Answer by jackmcdoodle
no philosophers are just f uck ing retards

Give your answer to this question below!

Question by meeko6811: Do you believe that the Transcendent in Philosophy and Religion is the same or different?

Best answer:

Answer by kelley b
i believe its different

Give your answer to this question below!

Question by Isu: What is the different between philosophy and religion?

Best answer:

Answer by Max
Religion credits a single omnipotent being with all of the unanswered questions.
Philosophy may eventually come to the same conclusion, but most philosophers are atheists, and come up with different solutions to the unanswered questions.

Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!

Terrorism in the name of religion, riots in god’s name, killing innocents for not worshipping a particular god, hatred or dislike for people of a particular religion, looking at worshippers of a certain god with suspicion….unfortunately such is the reality of today’s world.

Religion is a personal choice which is supposed to bring peace of mind and guide you to your life’s purpose. Loving god should encourage you to love everything he/she has created…yet why is there so much destruction and violence in the name of religion? Perhaps it’s because we focus on our differences more than our similarities. We look for ways to hate others because they are different from us. We use religion to create “Us” and “Them”.  Religion is something that can actually unite all humanity; it’s only a matter of how we choose to view it.

Religions are like books with different covers, names and supposedly different philosophies, but if you read between the lines, you’ll observe that every religion promotes and encourages the same basic virtues. Let’s examine the similarities one by one:

*Reap as you sow- Every religion believes in this concept, though the names given to it may differ. While some call it sin, it’s known as Karma or the threefold principle in others. Whatever you call it, the basic principle remains the same; if you do or think of something that harms or hurts others, you will pay a price! Every religion in its own way encourages goodness. What constitutes goodness may be different, but again if you read between the lines and remove the layers of corrupt human interpretation you will realize that peace, kindness and love define goodness in its purest form.

* The Concept of soul- All religions believe that the soul is indestructible, though there may be different beliefs about what happens to the soul after death. Yet to all, the soul exists as a fundamental universal religious concept. If you believe in the soul you know it can’t be destroyed, then why attempt to destroy human lives, when you know you have no power over the soul? Why even try to destroy something that’s indestructible! Isn’t that acting against the will of any religion’s god?

* The purpose of life- Reaching god or becoming one with him is considered the purpose of life. Every religion may prescribe a different path to attain that goal, but the goal is essentially the same; reaching your creator, whether in heaven or by attaining salvation by becoming like him, free of the cycle of life and death.

Human interpretation has corrupted almost every religion; it has given us a reason to hate each other. We are told we are different because our religion insists that ours is the only god. Does that mean people who don’t follow our religion are not god’s children?  How is that possible? We are all humans, we all have two eyes, two legs, two hands, and one nose…our skin colors may differ but our blood is all the same color! You wouldn’t hate your sibling if he called your father “papa” instead “dad”? Would you? Then why hate humans if they address their god by a different name? You wouldn’t hate your siblings if their philosophy of life was different from yours? Then why hate people who follow different religions?

There may be a lot of differences in the way we live and the philosophies we follow. We might also believe that we are headed towards different goals, after all Islam’s heaven is not the same as Christianity’s heaven which is different from a Hindu’s heaven, which is again unlike the Buddhist heaven, or Jewish heaven…yet if you ask yourself what heaven is, all religions believe it is a place of infinite bliss that only those of pure souls reach and hatred is the antithesis of purity.

There’s no denying that there are a lot of differences in the philosophies of religions, but if we learn to focus on our similarities instead of our differences, we’ll learn how to love and accept each other as fellow humans; children of god, even if they address him or her by different names!

Care to chime in and share your own religious thoughts and experiences? Come join others at Boomer Yearbook.

www.boomeryearbook.com is a social networking site connecting the Baby Boomer generation. Share your thoughts, rediscover old friends, or expand your mind with brain games provided by clinical psychologist Dr. Karen Turner. Join today to discover the many ways we are helping Boomers connect for fun and profit.

For www.boomeryearbook.com

www.abc.net.au Some interesting questions asked by the audience! ================================== * 13:30: Abdullah Kunde * 25:30: Hamzah Qureishi * 31:00: Another brother. ================================== Panellists Richard Dawkins – evolutionary biologist and prominent athiest Rabbi Jacqueline Ninio – progressive Rabbi, Emanuel Synagogue Professor Patrick McGorry – Australian of the Year Steve Fielding – Leader of Family First Julie Bishop – Deputy Leader of the Opposition ==================================

I understand that religion tends to explain otherwise unanswerable questions using their beliefs, and that Philosophy generally just studies unanswerable questions…. But this doesn’t really explain how they differ exactly.
Can anyone help me?

Just taking a tour of the philosophies behind two evolutionary philosophers.