This thread is about individual philosophy. mine can be defined as enlightenment, seeking to be free in my own thinking...so what is yours?
Refrain from harming people, refrain from harming animals, refrain from harming the environment. The superficial bull(*)(*)(*)(*) of religion is completely unnecessary.
I'm a pantheist. I just hope everything somehow pans out for the good for everyone and everything. I'm not too sure about the "the" in the middle of the word, though. And I haven't a clue what's really going on or whether it even matters. So i guess I'm also a dumbass-ist, too.
I base my philosophy on the idea that no supernatural things, or if there are, they are equally likely to work as we expect them to as they are to work in the exact opposite way or a completely unrelated way. Therefore, even if they exist, unless specifically known about, they should be ignored. I also follow a type of utilitarianism. I believe there is some measurement closely related to people's happiness which, maximised, would lead to my ideal world. I do however think that this measurement is a bit more complex than classical interpretations of utilitarianism. For instance, I don't believe that setting the entire world into a heroin-induced coma is a good thing.
My personal philosophy which I try very hard to live up to is: " never do anything Hurtful, harmful, mean, or unfair to any living creature. " the first two are sometimes hard to live up too because of the realities of living, but the latter two are simply a person's choice to uphold.
You're in an extremely large boat, but you have that streak of honesty that most dumbass-ists don't have, which may disqualify you from dumbassism.
I used to be a libertarian (in fact, I am registered as a Libertarian, large "L") but lately I have come to realize that libertarians by and large are half nuts. So I don't know what I am now, small "r" republican, maybe.
Not to be a troll, but is this even possible? just by eating you are propping up food prices when poor people starve, for instance.
This is BS too. Just by existing you harm people and animals and change the environment. It's all very well to mouth platitudes, but you should give them real thought before presenting them as a 'philosophy of life'.
Well if everything in life is seen only from a either/or perspective then there can be no cultural or sociological shades of gray. Any philosophic 'principle' can be run into the ground by a determined critic . . . any principle whatsoever. So what most people do by instinct or cultural conditioning or even by deliberate intellectual effort is balance subjective with objective factors and then cleave to what works best for them in relation to everything else and those dratted shades of gray as well.
Your point is granted, but your original statement was made as an absolute. If you did not mean for it to be taken as such, why was it phrased that way? if what you really mean is 'Do no harm . . . mostly.', then say that.
