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 John Lennon is My Hero: What philosophy/religion best fits my views?
I believe in an omnipresent god. once we die we become one with the universe for all eternity. i believe we are all one and we are all connected. there is no heaven or hell because when we die we become one. i believe in the soul and the soul is eternal. i dont really care about what religion or philosophy I believe in I just want a name so i dont have to explain all my beliefs to someone i can just give them a name of my philosophy/religion

Best answer:

Answer by erudite
Okay well traditionally you would be considered a Hindu, you basically described Hinduism. But look up new age philosophy because that is kinda of the same. Look up new age and hinduism

What do you think? Answer below!

Question by Rhythmic: Modern philosophers that are faithful to Schopenhauer’s views?
This is extremely ignorant of me but does anyone know any modern philosophers (alive today) that continue with a more ‘evolved’ system influenced by Schopenhauer?;

More so, if you can tell me how the chain has evolved throughout the centuries till today, like how kant>schopenhauer>nietsche>etc. to a modern day individual that carries on and modifies the thought.

Thanks.

Best answer:

Answer by Hamburger
It is difficult to say without knowing exactly what portions of their philosophies you are talking about, but if you are just talking about the chain of responses, you can look at:

Martin Heidegger (died 1976)
Jean-Paul Sartre (died 1980)
Albert Camus (died 1960)
Michel Foucault (died 1984)
Bernard Williams (died 2003)
Allan Bloom (died 1992)

The living philosophers who were heavily influenced by this chain of philosophers, whose work builds on Nietzsche’s are William Connolly and Brian Leiter.

Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!

An interesting discussion between two great philosophers of the latter half of the 20th century, exploring topics such as truth, meaning and reference. I apologize for the audio sync. It was a problem with the original file (not that it matters much, the video is simply two old men talking). Richard Rorty (1931-2007) developed a distinctive and controversial brand of pragmatism that expressed itself along two main axes. One is negative—a critical diagnosis of what Rorty takes to be defining projects of modern philosophy. The other is positive—an attempt to show what intellectual culture might look like, once we free ourselves from the governing metaphors of mind and knowledge in which the traditional problems of epistemology and metaphysics (and indeed, in Rorty’s view, the self-conception of modern philosophy) are rooted. plato.stanford.edu en.wikipedia.org Donald Davidson (1917-2003) was one of the most important philosophers of the latter half of the twentieth century. His ideas, presented in a series of essays from the 1960′s onwards, have been influential across a range of areas from semantic theory through to epistemology and ethics. Davidson’s work exhibits a breadth of approach, as well as a unitary and systematic character, which is unusual within twentieth century analytic philosophy. plato.stanford.edu en.wikipedia.org
Video Rating: 5 / 5

Find More Modern Philosophers Articles

I cannot figure out what Hegel’s views on epistemology , ethics, and metaphysics were. Anyone have any insight?

Greek thinkers in search of truth and knowledge were called philosophers, meaning “lovers of wisdom.” How did the views of the French philosophes compare with those of the Greek philosophers?