Plato's Cave - The Orlando Philosophy Meetup Group Message Board › Is it better to be nice than to be good?

Is it better to be nice than to be good?

amanda m.
user 10486702
Orlando, FL
Post #: 31
I've been watching PBS series on women. Although women were expected to be nice they were not expected to be fully functioning adults in the society at large. Once they do start functioning in the wider world is it disconcerting?

Men well know they are challenged with ethical concerns. A real world approach means not to put your head in the sand and assume we live in a world like Disney.

There will always be an evil inclination in all of us. Do we abandon the dicey difficulties of our wider world in order to hunker down and be more pure? or do we apply ourselves to an outside world that threatens to make us get our hands dirty?

Which have you preferred and do you desire in the future to go more one way or the other way?
A former member
Post #: 55
(First of all, Hello!)

"Men well know they are challenged with ethical concerns...."

And women do not? Seems a tad dualistic to me...I am a man, and I can say that the chief concerns of my Bros are not ethical.

In fact, it may be the peculiar nature of the male species which creates much of the "...dicey difficulties of our wider world" which you describe so finely.

Males tend to be more physically violent, mentally competitive and concerned with status (if I can venture huge generalizations) Such attitudes can lead to invention, artistic genius, pointless political gridlock, war, and serial killing.

A world run by women might well be vastly different, I think, perhaps less dynamic in certain respects but quite possibly safer and more user-friendly.

Devotees of Kali feel free to interrupt me here :)

But in this world which we've been thrown into, "manhood" in the best sense (the achievement of ability vigorously assert one's chosen principles, and defend one's property) is definitely a good thing.


Ciao!
amanda m.
user 10486702
Orlando, FL
Post #: 32
(First of all, Hello!)

"Men well know they are challenged with ethical concerns...."
Did I mean this as in developmentally challenged? ethically challenged.

"And women do not? Seems a tad dualistic to me...I am a man, and I can say that the chief concerns of my Bros are not ethical."
Really? Men may not phrase it that way but in discussions they seem to dwell on the ethics of the -other guy- at least.

"In fact, it may be the peculiar nature of the male species which creates much of the "...dicey difficulties of our wider world" which you describe so finely.
Males tend to be more physically violent, mentally competitive and concerned with status (if I can venture huge generalizations) Such attitudes can lead to invention, artistic genius, pointless political gridlock, war, and serial killing.
A world run by women might well be vastly different, I think, perhaps less dynamic in certain respects but quite possibly safer and more user-friendly.
But in this world which we've been thrown into, "manhood" in the best sense (the achievement of ability vigorously assert one's chosen principles, and defend one's property) is definitely a good thing."

This video shows that when women do the same behavior, in this example becoming executives, they are not seen as nice. So, instead of becoming an executive, to live in the world when I am thinking striving to be promote ethics in a very difficult world is actually a different concept than "being nice." The shock of the women's movement caused a backlash that is still with us. The elders still hate baby boomers and are still shocked by baby boomer women.http://www.ted.com/ta...­


amanda m.
user 10486702
Orlando, FL
Post #: 33
Does anyone understand Kant? Recommend a good review of his ideas? http://philosophy.lan...­
amanda m.
user 10486702
Orlando, FL
Post #: 34
From a course on Kant."Newton the great giant of early modern science, was regarded as having more or less done physics and the view of the universe and everything in it as more or less complicated bits of machinery was widely persuasive. Laplace caught the prevailing outlook when he wrote of the vision science in the 18th Century held before them: that if only you knew where all the bodies in the universe were at a particular time, then by applying the laws established by science you could work out where they would be at any time in the future. And by bodies he meant atoms particularly, so it was a way y of saying that absolutely everything was in principle predictable

Kant, the person I want us to think about today, was part of the reaction to this vision and the threat it posed to human beings' image of themselves. These revolutionaries woke up to the horror of what was proposed, and began shouting that it was completely unacceptable. It was a mix of saying: you mustn't think of human beings as

mechanical because that would lead to dreadful things, and human beings are actually not like that, and science must be wrong if it thinks we are.

I'm talking here of what became the Romantic Movement, a reaction to science running let's say, from 1775 to 1830.
Causality belongs to the world of appearance only"

Does anyone know Kant? Recommend a good sourse/pdf/book? Thanks. This was kind of sparked by our last discussion. If LOVE is important then if you don't "feel the love" then it is major? But many believe in actions. if life itself is mechanistic then can humans be valued for their hearts? Since life may be mainly random is there cause and effect? So are actions of value? Is it that we can get away with "the good college try" or must we show some kind of progress? We may know it when we see it but can we ever reconcile our moral view with the views from our eyes?
Rami K.
Rammy
Orlando, FL
Post #: 377
Nice, then good. When working across a diverse population I find that it is preferrable to keep to simple kindnesses. Having not seen the same PBS series I cannot claim to be coming from the same base you are writing from however, what I know of our past shared time together I sense that somehow this has something to do with progressive/conservative perspectives. I find generally conservatives are more concerned with human character and its affect upon the stability of the (perceived)long term good, while progressvies are interested in novelity. With kindness, one can be nice, or one can be good (perception bias). It comes down to context as to which is kind.
Powered by mvnForum

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy