It seems to me there are 3 main points of view:
- individual
- collectivist
- divine
From these three points you can derive philosophies and moral codes that would be completely incompatible with each other.
There's also no way of telling which point is the "correct" one. Did anyone tackled this problem?
>>1571262
Does divine include causes and purposes seen as greater than man, or is it just for deities and similiar?
>>1571273
>purposes seen as greater than man, or is it just for deities
Is there a difference between these? I think you can treat them as one.
>>1571278
The point of view. Quite irrelevant in the bigger picture.
>>1571282
By "divine" I mean people who think the agenda of a supreme being above humanity is a priority.
>>1571262
Eh, they're just axioms to start working from. I wouldn't include divine in there because it would still split into either collectivist or individual.
>>1571314
But there is a fundamental difference in morals of people who care about humanity as living organisms in the universe and those see "living" part as a trial for afterlife provided by a supreme being.
>>1571329
Hhmm, I think you're right, If individual rights and the welfare of the community is put aside for the sake of some ritual.
But I wouldn't say it's necessarily a divine stance, anything that seems larger than life, like say a great leader.
There are only two meaningful types of philosophy
One given meaning by a being great enough to give it meaning, and hedonism
>>1571262
I disagree with all of these. come at me.