Philosophy

1.Does the best life consist of pursuing just one intrinsic value or several
I am a prudential pluralist, and dont agree with the thought that I should follow only a single value system as it limits thought, and makes me unidirectional. Quite often I find that differences arise from a clash of views, and it is primarily because intrinsic values can be multi dimensional. My cherished views on how to live life may differ radically from another person. This is because people have different standards of rightness and goodness and appear to give different answers to the same moral question. I notice that people of the same culture may more or less have the same values. Conflicts occur when people differ in their opinion on rights or virtues.While rights are established by an enlightened society, ethics are more virtue based, and emerge from traditional society. So, for instance in traditional religious groups there may be restrictions on dress, which may be seen unacceptable to others. I feel the freedom to dress as I please and to do what I want seems right to me, and I believe. Based on culture, I have seen one seeing dressing restriction as correct and this intrinsic. The other group sees this as wrong, for they feel that freedom allows them to do as they please for numerous reasons. That religion is not based on clothes, that freedom allows them the liberty to dress as they please and so on. I have seen that quite often through persuasion, a person change view from one to the other.

2. Is there a universal recipe for the best life or are there different recipes best for different people
I am moderate prudential pluralist, as I believe each human being is different to the other, and there can never be one way in which everyone can follow and have the best life. I feel that every person desires something, whether it is materialistic or just something like mental peace or good health. This varies according to the concerned person is in at that particular time. The problem with a universal approach to life is that it either makes good sense or no sense at all. For a childless couple who appear to have everything, the thing they want most is to have a child. To a person in dire financial straits, his most urgent requirement would be money. However, I feel there are certain basic things one can do for happiness, and this includes training your mind to accept the good with the bad, and not to believe in excesses. I find that by following a value system of inner peace, learning to be patient and a good listener, will help me. I should also do things with out expecting recognition, learn to be selfless, avoid anger, develop tolerance, and be non-egoistic. These I am sure will help me achieve the best of life.

3. Is the best life a matter of personal opinion, or could a persons opinion be wrong
 I am a moderate prudential objectivist, and believe the best of life is a very relative question, as what I want out of life is so different from someone else.  Therefore, my opinion in such matters, considering personal autonomy and finding an answer, is like presupposing that we can resolve the subjectivity of the response. Therefore when moral opinions are challenged, I find that quite often I face arguments that the issue can get finally resolved only with a form of subjectivism. This may be wrong, but the pull of subjectivism caused by challenging the view of morality, and allowing another viewpoint, quite often means that a subjectivist view can prevail. However, I feel the best life is personal option and whether it is right or wrong makes no difference to how I feel.

NATURE OF MORALITY

Where does morality come from

I am a moderate moral absolutist, as unfortunately I find that in life there are no one answer, because all human being are different. The idea that I should do or shouldnt varies according to whether I am at that time thinking based on ethics, which is what is normally followed as it has been established as a societal norm, through enlightenment or sometimes my thinking is based on flowing tradition.
I dont feel that there can be just one opinion on any issue as the following old adage says
 there is no such thing as right or wrong, it is only thinking that makes it so. This is very true if I were to look at an issue from both sides. One side would be meta ethical if the opinion is based on societal value, arising from an enlightened society. In direct contrast to this could be the other view expressed on morality purely based on traditional values and which has been passed on through generations.
       
What does morality require us to do

I am a pluralist about basic moral standards, as one of the conditions of normative ethics is that it is also involves evaluating moral standards. Therefore, there is an attempt to figure out what people should do, or an evaluation of whether their current moral behavior is reasonable. This is really traditional moral philosophy.
There also arises the question as to whether I am bound to do what is right. Since society often looks at things from a purely theoretical side, it is important to be able to also consider the importance and evaluate the stand taken from a practical side. I find that this kind of pluralistic approach, solves more problems than I thought possible.


Why should I do what morality requires

 I consider myself a moderate altruist, as I find that when I am selfless and help people, society as a whole benefits.  I know that modern society preaches that I should act always in my own interest. I find this approach hard to justify in principle, as it is a purely personal one made for selfish reasons. This is nothing but ethical egoism. I feel that this way of morality is an overreaching way of thinking, and that it cannot be justified always. I therefore feel that a purely altruistic way of life where there is a moderate and  proper approach would be better.