When discussing new laws that give government agencies greater powers in relation to surveillance, people sometimes claim, "If you haven't done anything wrong, then you shouldn't have anything to hide." This doesn't sit right with me, but I find my disquiet difficult to explain. It's not that I'm worried about bad governments potentially abusing such powers; it's more that I feel some sort of violation has happened.
In a very different context, when people reveal their inmost thoughts on social media, or even post nude photographs of themselves, it's sometimes said, "This is who I am. Why should I hide anything or keep anything secret?" Again, I'd suggest that the value of some sort of privacy or private space is being questioned. There's a sort of implicit challenge as to why anyone should be private at all.
I was wondering whether philosophers have any good reasons why some sort of secret, private space should be valued in itself. If one is not a criminal, is there any reason not to live one's life...
I like to know how a philosopher comes to conclusion that a particular thing has an Instrumental value or an Intrinsic value. I read in Wikipedia, in Swedish section, that ice cream has an instrumental value, that there is no end in itself to eat ice cream, but it is good and makes me feel good. Feeling good has an intrinsic value.
Is it a matter of on's preference to arrive at that kind of conclusion? Is it possible to say that any thing that is made by human has an Instrumental value.?
Thank you for your help!
- Read more about Hi!
- 1 comment
- Log in to post comments
Existence is filled with happiness and suffering, but the amount of happiness and suffering is not guaranteed. Non-existence, on the other hand, has no happiness or suffering. Non-existence isn't good or bad, yet existence is labeled either good or bad. Why is it that existence must be labeled good or bad (or fulfilled/not fulfilled) with no middle ground, yet non-existence must remain neutral?
If science, robotics, and society progressed to the point where all human basic needs were provided for (food, clothing, shelter, health care, daily chores) at no cost and therefore nobody was required to labor, what would be of value?
"Everything in moderation" is a common view. But then moderation should be in moderation. If so, isn't moderation not fully moderate, and thus is partly immoderate?
Am i wrong in assuming the admiration of things, ideas, and/or people comes along with not only an unspoken, but definite predilection for them? - or is it possible to have that admiration, but dislike them entirely? i.e. Thinking something is the greatest thing ever, but all of its positive attributes are why you don't like it; maybe because of how the results of using said attributes makes you feel. Or would you say that the person doesnt truly admire it or even that they dont truly dislike the results?
I am a seventeen-year old guy, and recently I've been having some philosophical questions that are really getting me down. There is objectively no answer to them, but I want to feel that I am not alone in asking these questions, or if anyone else has thoughts like these. (This is going to be long so brace yourselves!)
Basically, at this stage in my life it feels that anything I do is completely pointless. Not in a suicidal or depressed way, but it just IS pointless - even if I blew up the world and everything on it, so what, that would just be the transfer of energy and breaking apart of atoms.
It feels like everything we do in life is for the sole aim of keeping us alive. For example, if I cut my hand off, it wouldn't ACTUALLY hurt (as atoms don't have feelings), but it would just send a message to my brain that I have been wounded in some way, and my brain will make me feel a certain level of pain depending on how severe the injury is, because it could possibly be hindering my survival, and that...
- Read more about Hello,
- 1 comment
- Log in to post comments