Etiniai, moraliniai klausimai yra tiesiogiai susije su psichologijos mokslu ir cia jie nagrinejami ne vien "mastant", bet ir atliekant tyrimus. Zenono Elėjiecio paradoksai irgi gali kazkam atrodyti patrauklus, nors kasdieninis patyrimas tam priestarauja

"Doc" <giedriusc_aciunereikia_@gmail.com> wrote in message news:gp0o8p$6rl$1@trimpas.omnitel.net...
Iš chemijos, kvantinės fizikos, archeologijos ir visokių kitokių mokslų pusės ši knyga nėra labai stipri taip pat, nes ne šių mokslų problemas ji nagrinėja :) Šiaip repect'as bičiukui, visiškai sėkmingai sugebėjo racionaliai išnagrinėti problemas, kurios iš pirmo žvilgsnio atrodo ne racionalaus mokslo sritis, o subjektyvūs žmonių įsitikinimai, turintys labai mažai bendro su objektyvumu ir racionalumu.

Dar pora citatų apie šioje knygoje nagrinėjamos problemos aktualumą:

Why bother with defining ethical theories? Surely good people don’t need them, and bad people don’t
consult them. People will do what they prefer, and just make up justifications as needed after the fact –
why bother lecturing people about morality?
Of course, the danger always exists that an immoral person will attack you for his own hedonistic
purposes. It could also be the case that, despite clean and healthy living, you may be struck down by
cancer before your time – the former does not make the science of morality irrelevant, any more than
the latter makes the sciences of medicine, nutrition and exercise irrelevant. One demonstrable effect of a
rational science of morality must be to reduce your chances of suffering immoral actions such as theft,
murder and rape.


An objective review of human history would seem to point to the grim reality that by far the most
dangerous thing in the world is false ethical systems.
If we look at an ethical system like communism, which was responsible for the murders of 170
million people, we can clearly see that the real danger to individuals was not random criminals, but false
moral theories. Similarly, the Spanish Inquisition relied not on thieves and pickpockets, but rather priests
and torturers filled with the desire to save the souls of others. Nazism also relied on particular ethical
theories regarding the relationship between the individual and the collective, and the moral imperative
to serve those in power, as well as theories “proving” the innate virtues of the Aryan race.
Over and over again, throughout human history, we see that the most dangerous instruments in the
hands of men are not guns, or bombs, or knives, or poisons, but rather moral theories. From the “divine
right of kings” to the endlessly legitimized mob rule of modern democracies, from the ancestor worship
of certain Oriental cultures to the modern deference to the nation-state as personified by a political
leader, to those who pledge their children to the service of particular religious ideologies, it is clear that
by far the most dangerous tool that men possess is morality. Unlike science, which merely describes
what is, and what is to be, moral theories exert a near-bottomless influence over the hearts and minds of
men by telling them what ought to be.
When our leaders ask for our obedience, it is never to themselves as individuals, they claim, but rather to
“the good” in the abstract. JFK did not say: “Ask not what I can do for you, but rather what you can do for
me...” Instead, he substituted the words “your country” for himself. Service to “the country” is considered
a virtue – although the net beneficiaries of that service are always those who rule citizens by force. In the
past (and sometimes even into the present), leaders identified themselves with God, rather than with
geography, but the principle remains the same. For Communists, the abstract mechanism that justifies
the power of the leaders is class; for fascists it is the nation; for Nazis it is the race; for democrats it is
“the will of the people”; for priests it is “the will of God” and so on.
Ruling classes inevitably use ethical theories to justify their power for the simple reason that human
beings have an implacable desire to act in accordance to what they believe to be “the good.” If service to
the Fatherland can be defined as “the good,” then such service will inevitably be provided. If obedience
to military superiors can be defined as “virtue” and “courage,” then such violent slavery will be endlessly
praised and performed.

--
Doc

"shedeuw" <shedeuw@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:gov28n$ot5$1@trimpas.omnitel.net...
> Is filosofines puses gal ir verta kazko, bet is psichologines, kiek rodo tavo pateikta istrauka, yra visiskas nesusipratimas