5 Answers

  1. Not necessarily all of them, but some of them absolutely. In an ordinary person, the firmness of his moral position is valuable. The task of the philosopher is to ask the question: what if the good is not good and the bad is not bad? What if what are considered virtues are actually evil? What if what is considered a vice is actually a virtue? This task is quite dangerous. Therefore, the opposite is also true: the virtues of a philosopher would be the vices of an ordinary person.

  2. They are not. Unless philosophers are a kind of offshoot of Darwin's monkey theory. Virtues are in the heart. Philosophy is in the head.

    It should be understood that professional research methods have neither direct nor inverse dependence on the moral qualities of a person.

  3. Philosophers they are in your opinion, it turns out that they are no longer people? What virtues are we talking about? If this is about the fact that philosophers consider evil as well. Considering evil is not accepting it. In philosophy, there are those who deny the paths of virtue. Justifies hatred, violence, deception. But this is only the opinion of some philosophers who are far from virtuous. Other philosophers will not accept this opinion.

  4. Philosophers are ordinary people who were once recognized as philosophers by someone. The concepts of good and evil, sin and virtue are the same and unchangeable for all people. And for God, too.

  5. There are many directions in philosophy.Universal morality, based on the concepts of good and justice, is one.Vices also have clear characteristics.Therefore, this class is more likely to apply not to philosophers in general, but to their individual groups.

Leave a Reply