"-ism"s

Classical utilitarianism. Consequentialism.

Intrinsic, inherent and extrinsic values. Instrumental and non-instrumental values. The differences between the intrinsic and non-instrumental; the disparities between extrinsic and instrumental ideas.

Deontology. Teleology. Virtue ethics. Pragmatic ethics.


This forest of polysyllabic words is unfathomable. Philosophy is a pointless venture.

Allow me to correct myself. Modern philosophy is a pointless venture. We study to be wiser - to remove the lenses of prejudices clouding our vision. We learn more to see clearer. What current philosophy teaches is a matrix of ethical principles that bears little relevance to reality. It impedes clarity of thought.

"Class, what should land ethics be? Is it a branch of teleology or deontology? Or is it a system of virtue ethics?"

In the past. people write beautiful passages about life and its meanings. Now, people interpret these wondrous words with the myopic and verbose tools of modern philosophy. I know all the polysyllabic words to describe something. So? Knowing these doesn't show genuine appreciation of the nuances involved. I end up saying that Nature has both intrinsic and instrumental values or describing land ethics as an overlap between deontology and teleology. Rather pointless since almost everyone can determine so prior to learning philosophy (just that they may not know the academic jargons).

"Back when Rachel Carson/ Aldo Leopold wrote their essays, these philosophical frameworks don't exist. But now that we know, we can classify them as XXX."

Philosophy, based on 'if and what if's, is a nebulous branch of knowledge. It complicates issues, for no other purpose than to rationalise its existence.

What's their point? What's the point?