Really nice. Not to mention that Freud secretly brought a whole number of otherwise-irrational-behaviors under the auspicies of Rationality. Foucault makes pretty good hay with this Speaking-the-Truth-to-Power maneuver, inherent in both religious confession and “analysis” (History of Sexuality).
from what i understood of the categorical impreative its somewhere along the lines of only do things that you want everyone else to do like “that fish” suggested or something along the lines of dont do something that in the end creates an environment where you can no longer do those kinds of things. the example my teacher gave me was if everyone steals then you cant steal because no one owns anything. if everyone murders then you cant murder because no ones alive. to be honest i didnt get it because it leaves a lot of “immoral” things out and doesnt really make sense. but my question was if thats the case and thats what kant means by the categorical imperative then wouldnt it contradict itself? say if everyone acts under the categorical imperative or becomes moral doesnt that make it impossible to act moral? if everyone is moral what happens to immorality under the categorical imperative
And here I am thinking that “democratic principles” and “humanitarian moral atheism” are good things 
That sounds rather democratic, to me…
Kant was basically part of the enlightenment, and said thinkers were reacting to religious rule and the justifications that it used for its power. The reason for laws and correct behaviour came from god.
When god stopped being a factor, then a vacuum was left regarding any premise for previously existing rules. So, without god, a watching guiding source of order and meaning, there’s no reason to do anything.
Kant, and many others I’m sure, knew what “good” behaviour is and should be under a variety of circumstances. A solution to this would be to invent existentialism or secular humanism, but this isn’t what Kant came up with. He capitalised on the human compulsion to enter into a state of denial and act as if something that’s true isn’t, or vice versa.
Here’s how it works. Without god and morals the people in a state would have to agree that the state has no reason or purpose to exist, but that they will all try to pleasantly get along if there is to be a state. The agreement would be necessary because no ruling body would have the moral authority to create laws. The lack of human agreement, in general, makes this an impossible situation (as an aside, this is why communism has trouble). To create a moral system the state and the individual has to pretend that it exists.
So, hypothetical Truths are created that provide a foundation for other hypothetical truths and soon a unique society is formed. The phrase from America “these truths are self-evident,” is a great example of the approach, because it amounts to saying “we know it just because.” That doesn’t sound like much, but if the idea limits human suffering, then it’s valuable (if you accept that as a value, of course).
Kant created a technique to provide meaning and ideological framework in a world without meaning, which has its merits for stability. At the same time the idea can create conflict because systems can spring up that are at odds with each other. In defence of hypothetical ideas that are seen as real, nationalism, isolationism, and even war can break out.
I suppose that government could be created by some statistical technique of studying what really works in the world that then making policy around that, but that would be a massive job, and perhaps it would find that slavery was the most fruitful system. Kant says no, that’s not acceptable no matter the price.
I think that what I’ve articulated presents both the good and the bad of his approach.
To pick up on the last post…
Lutheran and born into a pietist family, I. Kant dissociates in almost all his works Christian faith and philosophy. This approach is well understood in the context of the contradictory views which preceded or surrounded his. Those of W. Leibniz, for example, a rationalism which strives to conciliate scholastics and cartesianism, and that of D. Hume who, in the name of empiricism, denies the value of the principle of causality and reduces ideas to subjective perceptions, like S. Freud would do in his book “The future of an illusionâ€. In this antagonistic context, Kant wants to base dignity of man on an objective knowledge of himself and of the world that surrounds him. What can I know by myself? What must I do? What can I hope for? These questions must be answered through the sole usage of reason, without recourse to revealed “truths†form a religious origin.
Reason, he says, gives us access to universal scientific and moral values which react to individual subjective tendencies: a conflict results from which emerges a notion of good and bad for each person. This tension thus created in our conscience leads to choices and attitudes based on reason which singularize and found the specific dignity of man. It is in this respect that the human being is unique, is priceless and non exchangeable. The human being must thus not be instrumentalized or considered as an object. This is precisely the status which founds modern day ethics as well as the universal declaration of human rights of 1948. The person has its end in itself; it is neither exchangeable, nor replaceable, quantifiable, notably in monetary terms. It is the adage of Kant oft repeated in medical ethics: ““Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a meansâ€, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, 1785. There rests, for sure, an essential foundation of contemporary ethics; it forms in theory, if not always in practice, a large consensus.
kant’s categorical imperative makes sense. Every normal, rational person will refrain from killing others so that this will not become a universal law or accepted thing, so that the act will not “boomerang” back to him/her and friends and family members connected to him/her. The imperative can only work in a rational society ( ok, ok, so VAGUELY rational society… ) Killing everyone technically means that you are not obeying the imperative. Thus it is not contradicting itself in such a situation for it is not being used. It is being ignored. Why do you think there is a categorical imperative? To eliminate evil/pain. And I get the feeling the categorical imperative only means it is good to do certain things and bad to do others, it by no means specifies that, say, if i paint a painting I will the entire population to grab brushes and get moving.
I am a human. I like to survive. I like to experience pleasure. I like to have a happy life. I like to have friends. I like to have stability. That is all the reason you need to “do anything”.
What?? How about the collective defense of the nation from other nations? How about some centralized authority to create roads and water lines? How about a set of laws to protect us from thugs and warlords?
If that ruling body had a mandate of the masses, as in being elected, then they do have moral authority to create laws, because the people bestow it upon them. Besides, with any concept of ‘moral authority’ as an abstraction, the fact is when we all get together and decide on certain things collectively, and put people in charge of certain things, then life works out better for almost all of us. That’s plenty reason enough for a state, for laws, for authority, etc. Nothing in the realm of the invisible or mystical or transcendent is needed for anything humans need to do, and never has been.
No, it does in fact exist because, by definition, a moral system is created by human beings. It’s a collection of expected behaviors that are arrived at through informal general consensus, and enforced through a range of mechanisms, spanning from simple social and peer pressures to legal enforcement for the more serious offenses. That’s what a ‘moral system’ is, and therefore it really does objectively exist - just as much as we can say that the system ants use to build their hills or the system Bonobo monkeys use to establish group domination exists - objectively.
We have engaged in this technique already, and are continually doing so. It’s called the lessons of history. All new systems of government, and all changes in the government are made because of the positions and arguments held by individual people. Invariably, you will find these people presenting their ‘reasons’ for their positions. These reasons nearly always include the effects of the policies and situations they are opposing. Thus, humanity is in a continual experiment to define and approach a system that is most effective. We already tried the experiment of slavery for thousands of years and it has been proven a failure.
One must take into account “how people feel about something” when making these assessments because it is people who form the components of the social systems we create. To be successful, any system must be formed with the nature of its components in mind. If a majority of people would be displeased with something, that is an objective fact and a real feature of the system that could, in itself, render a system inneffective. In such a case, we don’t say “this system is effective, but no one will go for it”. No, there is no division of realities - there is one whole reality with all facts involved. If no one will go for it, that means it is not effective by its very nature; thus the case with slavery. But people often make the mistake of discounting attitudes, beliefs, and reactions of people in the equation. What we think and believe is not “unreal” - it’s very real.
I know you’re just paraphrasing Kant here, but I don’t think he’d agree to much of the way you’ve summed up his position. I could be wrong though.
Kant was a rationalist. A metaphysician. There is a necessary self-contradiction in all rationalism and a necessary disregard of effects in all metaphysics. And there is an unresolvable dichotomy in Kant.
It’s pretty much a mess.
Try as he might to escape it, Kant was writing within, and (more importantly) for his social milieu - his zeitgeist. Read his early (theological) works, and “On Duty”. He never repudiated Christianity in any way that affected his morality. He merely brought Aquinas into full rationalist flower, and Descartes into a ridiculous, if logically “terminal” dualism.
Mr. P is essentially correct. Kant was a shill for the status quo. He provides inspiration to this day for similar shills. Rawls updates Kant, in certain respects, for modern American liberal democracy. DT - your criticism reflects Rawls’ efforts, but I am not sure Kant would even know what you are talking about.
DT,
I’m not defending Kant half as much as I’m trying to explain him. I mentioned in my post that there are alternatives to his ideas, but that he didn’t invent those, only his own ideas.
I see Kant as being a main force in the modern world and believe that the CI rules in everything from politics to the ads on Television. There seems to be a natural tendency for people to lie as a means of making things “real” so that ideas can be pursued.
It really is possible that Kant invented, or tapped into, a great idea because it meshed with a very common trait. Of course, the idea prospers at the expense of the minority of rational clear-minded people.
Just a side thought. Friendship/love is an affective and moral experience, since it is through friendship that responsibility is born. When we love, we are in some sense in charge of the person we love, and vice versa. Obviously, those who have never had the experience of friendship/love do not understand this. They in fact often revert to Kant and his categorical imperative, not necessarily consciously; once mired in that quagmire, it is quite difficult to uplift someone from it. 
Dunamis,
Sorry about misspelling Liebniz. I included Darwin and Mendel in my short list because their discoveries prompted volumes of philosophic reaction. Since the beginning of the last quarter of the 20th century more philosophy has been written than was written in the past 400 years. (David E. Cooper). And, no I haven’t read it all; but I do have a background of 45 years of reading philosophy and science for fun.
My interest in this deluge of contemporary philosophic writings are those concerning epistemological evolution. For me that is where the action is–philosophers having to come to grips with science. If interested check out writings by Cosimedes & Tooby, Pinker, Wilson, Dawkins, Curchland, Humprey, Dennett, et.al., and, yes I’ve read them. Apparently you have not or you would not question the philosophic heritage of the word evolve.
As for the Humean idea that is cannot be ought, it’s armchair philosophy, a parsing of words. Esthetics and ethics emerge in the minds of mammals with large brains and prefrontal cortexes. (Pinker). Especially check out Richard Dawkin’s “The Selfish Gene” for his take on the evolution (oops, that dirty word) of memes.
Harvey, I think that’s a kind of warm, fuzzy version of responsibility. While friendship certainly can summon forth responsibility, so can coercive force (such as from Mom) or mutual interest - a deal, stated plainly. And we can have many reasons to make a deal.
I think Kant was probably a lonely guy, though. Doesn’t seem like a lot of fun.
Harvey,
I think that love can be beaten by a variety of factors such as lack of resources and greed. On the micro scale lots of at one time loving couples become greedy regarding their time, amount of attention, and other intangibles and the love is broken.
Love is real and it’s a great thing, but it’s not the most “super†force on Earth. However, if you pretend that it is then perhaps the true and greater influence of manyy pragmatic concerns can be diminished.
No matter, I suggest that you continue nurturing your attitude. 
Mr. P.,
=D> . Good stuff.
Edit: double post.
Thank you, thank you…
I have read rather extensively in your list. I have no idea were you get the idea that “must” evolves from “can”. The literature in this area is diverse, and using the word “evolve” as a catch phrase that connects the vagueries of “can” and “must” simply does not serve. Not to mention throwing in the pre-Socratics and Spinoza.
Let’s take Spinoza for instance. There is no “evolves” in Spinoza. There is no teleology. Must, in the deontological sense is simply not present. Each of us do our “duty” simply by living. Everything in Spinoza is a “must” of “can”. Now if you want to list a bunch of diverse authors’ names and say that you have satisfactorially stated your position, feel free to. I am not questioning the “heritage” of the word “evolve” (whatever that might mean), but I am questioning your rather vague and unqualified use of it. In otherwords, I have no idea what you mean by it, and since I have asked you three times what you mean by it, and have only been able to elicit lists of names, I get the feeling you don’t know what you mean by it either). I am thoroughly Darwinian in my conception, but am unable to understand your thought here.
“Evolution” is not a dirty word. Tossing it around like a magic wand that suddenly supports every position is a dirty (mentally lazy) act. Please, for instance, explain how either Pinker or Dawkins have changed “can” to “must”? A good starting point would be defining what you man by “can”, “will” and “must”. Duty remains in the realm of can, the must is only the contingently expressed, and determined biological form.
D.,
Evolve is no catch phrase. Apparently you read into not out of. Can you understand Pinker at all? I will not parse semantics with you. It’s a waste of my valuable time.
Little articulation. Much bluster. I have read Pinker. You started out listing “much of philosophy” in your support, then listed a series of philosophers, that as far as I can tell have nothing to say to your position (Spinoza is a good example), going all the way back to the pre-Socratics. Then you listed a bunch of evolutionists that all disagree with each other to some degree. And now you have settled on lonely Pinker. When I ask you to explain how “can”, “will” and “must” fit into Pinker, you don’t have enough time to explain. How has “much of philosophy” shrunk down to one author? How has “evolve” grown into a vast self-explantion of the vague words “can”, “must” and “will”?