Archived project

Personal Relationships: Emotions and Responsibilities

Goal: Free download. Unpublished. 49 pages. For the general reader. Contents: 1. Preface. 2. Personal Relationships as a Category. 3. Philosophy of Emotions. 4. Actions and Passions. 5. Can We Define Emotion as Passion? 6. No Moral Responsibility for Emotions as Such. 7. Four Problems We Have in Dealing with Our Emotions. 8. Different Kinds of Love. 9. Hybrid Entities That Are Not Emotions, but Include Them. 10. The Ontological Locus of Emotions is in The Mind. 11. Emotions are a Necessary Condition of All Values and Duties. 12. Is Agape Egalitarian? Is it Better than Egalitarian? 13. Levels of Moral Duty in Personal Relationships. 14. Defeasibility and the Incommensurability of Different Values. 15. Honesty, Faithfulness, Trust, and Promises are Defeasible. 16. Defeasing the Five Main Duties of Personal Relationships. 17. Are the Supreme Religious Duties Defeasible? 18. The Defeasibility of Negative Values (Evils, Vices, Sins). 19. Three Cases for Discussion. 20. Meta-Ethical Theories Are No Help. 21. Conclusion. Notes. References. Paper Description: This is the only work I have done in what Aristotle would call the practical science of ethics. All the other philosophy I have done is in what Aristotle would call theoretical science. Theoretical science is the study of what is the case, or how things are in the world. Practical science is the study of how we ought to live in the world. The paper is largely an update of Aristotle. I agree with Aristotle that no one is ever responsible for any of their *emotions*, since we are their passive recipient. and that nonetheless everyone is responsible for all of their *actions*, including those concerning their emotions. My main update is to Aristotle’s theory of the golden mean (that is not his term, but it is the popular one). Any two different duties will oppose and defease each other, each at its own end of a continuum of logically possible situations. There will always be a logically indeterminate area in the middle, where the duties are incommensurable. There, no theoretical resolution is possible, and we can only use our best judgment.

Date: 12 June 2016

Updates
0 new
0
Recommendations
0 new
0
Followers
0 new
1
Reads
0 new
8

Project log

Jan Dejnožka
added a research item
Free download. Unpublished. Two recommendations. 49 pages. Over 285 reads. For the general reader. Contents: 1. Preface. 2. Personal Relationships as a Category. 3. Philosophy of Emotions. 4. Actions and Passions. 5. Can We Define Emotion as Passion? 6. No Moral Responsibility for Emotions as Such. 7. Four Problems We Have in Dealing with Our Emotions. 8. Different Kinds of Love. 9. Hybrid Entities That Are Not Emotions, but Include Them. 10. The Ontological Locus of Emotions is in The Mind. 11. Emotions are a Necessary Condition of All Values and Duties. 12. Is Agape Egalitarian? Is it Better than Egalitarian? 13. Levels of Moral Duty in Personal Relationships. 14. Defeasibility and the Incommensurability of Different Values. 15. Honesty, Faithfulness, Trust, and Promises are Defeasible. 16. Defeasing the Five Main Duties of Personal Relationships. 17. Are the Supreme Religious Duties Defeasible? 18. The Defeasibility of Negative Values (Evils, Vices, Sins). 19. Three Cases for Discussion. 20. Meta-Ethical Theories Are No Help. 21. Conclusion. Notes. References. Paper Description: This is the only work I have done in what Aristotle would call the practical science of ethics. All the other philosophy I have done is in what Aristotle would call theoretical science. Theoretical science is the study of what is the case, or how things are in the world. Practical science is the study of how we ought to live in the world. The paper is largely an update of Aristotle. I agree with Aristotle that no one is ever responsible for any of their *emotions*, since we are their passive recipient. and that nonetheless everyone is responsible for all of their *actions*, including those concerning their emotions. My main update is to Aristotle’s theory of the golden mean (that is not his term, but it is the popular one). Any two different duties will oppose and defease each other, each at its own end of a continuum of logically possible situations. There will always be a logically indeterminate area in the middle, where the duties are incommensurable. There, no theoretical resolution is possible, and we can only use our best judgment.
Jan Dejnožka
added a project goal
Free download. Unpublished. 49 pages. For the general reader. Contents: 1. Preface. 2. Personal Relationships as a Category. 3. Philosophy of Emotions. 4. Actions and Passions. 5. Can We Define Emotion as Passion? 6. No Moral Responsibility for Emotions as Such. 7. Four Problems We Have in Dealing with Our Emotions. 8. Different Kinds of Love. 9. Hybrid Entities That Are Not Emotions, but Include Them. 10. The Ontological Locus of Emotions is in The Mind. 11. Emotions are a Necessary Condition of All Values and Duties. 12. Is Agape Egalitarian? Is it Better than Egalitarian? 13. Levels of Moral Duty in Personal Relationships. 14. Defeasibility and the Incommensurability of Different Values. 15. Honesty, Faithfulness, Trust, and Promises are Defeasible. 16. Defeasing the Five Main Duties of Personal Relationships. 17. Are the Supreme Religious Duties Defeasible? 18. The Defeasibility of Negative Values (Evils, Vices, Sins). 19. Three Cases for Discussion. 20. Meta-Ethical Theories Are No Help. 21. Conclusion. Notes. References. Paper Description: This is the only work I have done in what Aristotle would call the practical science of ethics. All the other philosophy I have done is in what Aristotle would call theoretical science. Theoretical science is the study of what is the case, or how things are in the world. Practical science is the study of how we ought to live in the world. The paper is largely an update of Aristotle. I agree with Aristotle that no one is ever responsible for any of their *emotions*, since we are their passive recipient. and that nonetheless everyone is responsible for all of their *actions*, including those concerning their emotions. My main update is to Aristotle’s theory of the golden mean (that is not his term, but it is the popular one). Any two different duties will oppose and defease each other, each at its own end of a continuum of logically possible situations. There will always be a logically indeterminate area in the middle, where the duties are incommensurable. There, no theoretical resolution is possible, and we can only use our best judgment.