Again, can we really put it into good work admiral? I mean, come on, he does a lot of good work but he's doing all of them because he's a total masochist so it's not like it's for the girls. Well, not the big part of it.
Again, can we really put it into good work admiral? I mean, come on, he does a lot of good work but he's doing all of them because he's a total masochist so it's not like it's for the girls. Well, not the big part of it.
is the reason why someone does a good job a reason for it not being a good job?
velocius said: is the reason why someone does a good job a reason for it not being a good job?
That reminds me of a lengthy conversation on my live stream about Tanaka from Persona 3. He donated to an orphanage a large sum of money, which is a good deed, but for the wrong reasons. But that doesn't change the fact that the donation itself is a good deed.
Again, can we really put it into good work admiral? I mean, come on, he does a lot of good work but he's doing all of them because he's a total masochist so it's not like it's for the girls. Well, not the big part of it.
True, he is a total masochist but he manages to fulfill his needs while also helping out his fleet. He is under no obligation to do things like send Yamato out on sorties, help the mole achieve her goal of avoiding drowning, and take the hit for kisaragi.
He could be a total sleazebag, instead he just has an eccentric way of ensuring the happiness of his fleet while also meeting his own needs.
People rarely do good things just for its own sake.
That reminds me of a lengthy conversation on my live stream about Tanaka from Persona 3. He donated to an orphanage a large sum of money, which is a good deed, but for the wrong reasons. But that doesn't change the fact that the donation itself is a good deed.
Well, not necessarily. According to Kantian philosophy, morality is tied to a sense of duty as opposed to outcome. That's similar to a notable example; imagine two people: One is a rich philanthropist who likes to help people and donates lots of money because he enjoys the feeling of having made a difference and the other is a grumpy man who hates all of humanity but sees it as his duty to donate to charity regardless. According to this philosophy, it is the second; and not the first; who is morally good. The philanthropist is merely donating as a means to achieve the positive feeling of having contributed, ie. he did it for himself whereas the second person acted purely out of duty, regardless of his own desires or emotions.
Well, not necessarily. According to Kantian philosophy, morality is tied to a sense of duty as opposed to outcome. That's similar to a notable example; imagine two people: One is a rich philanthropist who likes to help people and donates lots of money because he enjoys the feeling of having made a difference and the other is a grumpy man who hates all of humanity but sees it as his duty to donate to charity regardless. According to this philosophy, it is the second; and not the first; who is morally good. The philanthropist is merely donating as a means to achieve the positive feeling of having contributed, ie. he did it for himself whereas the second person acted purely out of duty, regardless of his own desires or emotions.
This -might- be a factor to why I like Heihachi Mishima so much. Or maybe it's his moveset.
Leave a comment