Thursday, December 3, 2009

Why a morality? (first part)

In order to have a principle of stable and responsible life protecting us as much as possible from interior and exterior conflicts, and from corporal deterioration, this by accepting the limits of the human nature, what is supposed to help us to go at the most possible good. But it is true that the experiences of each one allow a different interpretation of a simple principle like usefulness and fairness, it has to be then that following the most common experiences of a civilization, even of humanity, we can pose some rules allowing us to live together a minimum, knowing that this will not avoid all the discords which can come from different experiences or interpretations between the persons of a same civilization or between different civilizations, but will be able all the same at least to minimize these if it is possible ; these common rules have to respect the good that each one can bring following one’s skills, thus the less intelligent ones, and/or cultivated, and/or positively experienced have to understand that the solution in order to be less vicious is not to generalize vice because this attacks too much the bests ; and that they cannot put the life of others in danger like tyrants, this because of the weakness of the human judgment and of the importance of this action, though life has not got the same value for everybody...

3 comments:

Joseph Smidt said...

Interesting. Do you have a favorite philosopher?

Cartesian said...

I like Descartes in sciences, but for morality if he has done a bit, there is more with some others like Montesquieu or Rousseau. Otherwise I find interesting "Democracy in America" by de Tocqueville. But may be you know a good American one, that you can recommend to me?

Cartesian said...

P.-S. : Excuse me I did forget Locke.