| BookTalk.org News |
| • Only 4 members are currently signed up to receive email digests. Click on the digests link on the right at the top of every page to learn more. This is a great feature for keeping updated on forum activity. |
| • Regular casual chats are back on the menu! Check out the calendar for the schedule. |
| Featured Videos |
Dan Barker
author of "Godless"
talks about his deconversion
Andrew Bacevich
"The Limits of Power"
More Videos
|
| Amazon Honor System |
|
| Donate to BookTalk.org |
Please support BookTalk.org by making a small donation today!
•
Who supports us?
|
| Show us where you live! |
 |
|
| Author |
Message |
MadArchitect
Usergroups: None
Joined: 14 Nov 2004
Posts: 2609
Thanks
Given: 0
Received: 0 in 0 Posts
Gender: 
Location: decentralized
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 8:42 pm Post subject: Should the world perish that justice be done?
|
 |
|
The two quotations that follow are from the essay "Some Questions of Moral Philosophy":
| Arendt wrote: |
| ... to establish life as the highest good is actually, so far as ethics are concerned, question-begging, since all ethics, Christian or non-Christian, presuppose that life is not the highest good for mortal men and that there is always more at stake in life than the sustenance and procreation of individual living organisms. That which is at stake may be very different; it may be greatness and fame as in pre-Socratic Greece; it may be the permanence of the city as in Roman virtue; it may be the health of the soul in the hereafter; it may be freedom or justice, or many more such things. |
Before we get to the second quote, a few questions about the first:
Do you think that's an accurate description of the traditional relationship between life and morality? Or is morality ultimately concerned with the continuation and survival of life?
Do you think it would be better to establish a morality that was premised on life as the highest good?
Moving on...
| Arendt wrote: |
| ... one could indeed argue that Life, the survival of the world and the human species, are the highest good. But this would mean no more than that any ethics or morality would simply cease to exist. And in principle this thought was anticipated by the old Latin question: Fiat justitia, pereat mundus (Should the world perish that justice be done?), and the question was answered by Kant: "If justice perishes, human life on earth has lost its meaning." |
Some more questions:
If Arendt is right, and always acting so as to support life ultimately negates morality altogether, are we better off without morality?
How would you answer "the old Latin question?"
Do you agree with Kant that a life without justice is meaningless?
Last edited by MadArchitect on Thu Nov 15, 2007 8:44 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
| Recent Topics |
|
|
|
