The degree of understanding and practice of morality and ethics is relative to the age of the person from child to adult. I think this principle is indisputable.
I had spent nearly 3 years full time on Kant and it is a bit rusty on me at present since I had put that aside to put full time effort [ongoing] on researching & understanding Islam [why Islam (in Part) is so Evil] for almost 2 years to the present.
Personal moral responsibility changes with age but the moral code stays the same. If the moral code did change with age, then there would be basically two codes. And if there are two codes, then what Kantian code would you teach to children? How does it differ from the Kantian which would be taught to adults? And why not teach the children’s Kantian code to adults (at least as a starting point)?
As I had stated the Moral Principles must be absolute [conditioned within the Framework], so there can only be one absolute moral code.
Take for example the Golden Rule maxim [this is not the ultimate absolute moral principle btw] which is one principle but the understanding and practice are relative to the age of the person in one perspective and to one’s moral competence in another perspective.
As for children there is no way they can be taught the philosophical theory behind it and other matured views, so children has to be guided different relative to their moral competence, intellect, wisdom, etc. E.g. the use of children stories, fables [e.g. Aesop’s], cartoons, etc.
Therefore, according to you the moral principles depend on the framework.
Why should we adopt your Kantian framework?
One reason not to adopt it : it’s too complicated. It takes too long to learn. It takes too long to teach.
A child cannot understand the Golden Rule? I find that hard to believe. Especially in light of the fact that you often hear parents using it to explain to a child that he/she has done something wrong.
Can they be taught Kantian morality? Is there some way to explain it. It’s as simple as that.
Yes, all principles are conditioned by a framework and system, that is applicable to moral principles.
The point is one must ensure the framework and system is grounded on the soundest rational arguments.
Take for example morality from theism. The supposedly absolute moral principles of any religion are conditioned by its respective theistic framework and system. But note the theistic framework and system is grounded on God which is illusory, impossible to be proven and impossible to exists as real.
So the moral pathway is this; Why must one ought to do this? well it is because God said so in a book!
The theistic moral framework do work which is on one way better than nothing, but it has its cons which must be eliminated and replaced with better alternatives whenever available and possible
Therefore an effective Moral and Ethical Framework and System must be grounded on arguments that are as real as possible at the highest possible levels of knowledge which can be justify, tested, rationalized and put into practice on a continuous improvement basis.
It is not a Kantian Framework exclusively. Kant presented a “sound” proposal for a universal Moral and Ethical Framework and System. It is very “sound” because it is well grounded [as mentioned above] on arguments that are as real as possible at the highest possible levels of knowledge which can be justified, tested, rationalized and put into practice on a continuous improvement basis.
The critical reason is there is not yet a critical mass of average humans in alignment with that universal framework and system yet.
For example there is a need to raise the average levels of critical, logical, rational and advanced thinking skill of the average human throughout the world.
Note before the internet days, so many humans were way below expected levels of achievements of human competences. Now that we have the internet, there is sudden Quantum leap in the progress of many aspects of humanity. Note the education levels in progressing at a tremendous rate with the introduction the internet and IT, advances in other sophisticated fields of knowledge, e.g. neuroscience, genetics, etc.
Kant’s proposals are very complicated but when IT and general education are more advanced, it can be simplified and easily communicated to most.
Not its overall philosophy with the Moral Framework.
Kantian morality can be brought [simplified] down to the level of children when it reasonably familiar by the average adults. It can be done, once upon a time calculus was confined to university students only but now it taught to younger and younger children.
Goodness is the default position for each human being.
The culture in which they are raised OR the lack of affection they are shown by adults are the causes why they turn out to display some degree of an unethical character. Also, they may have been born with a genetic defect that results in some form of brain damage. These are the exceptions. These, the sociopaths and psychopaths are only about 2% of the human species.
Yes, when folks move from the small village to the big cities they get infected with the “greed meme.” They start to obsessively pursue money. Greed, we ought to understand, is an obsessive-compulsive disorder. …It’s a sickness. I
n the same way, cynicism and pessimism are sicknesses. Some day we all will appreciate this fact; it will be common knowledge. The pessimist names things and situations so (in his distorted view) they turn out to be “bad.” If he put another label on them, they would turn out to be good from that other perspective. E.g., a “bad horse” is “a good nag.” A pesticide may be viewed as “A good way to kill honeybees.” A had building is a “good slum.” When you call something “good” you then know what to do with it or about it. Those who are pessimists usually dwell on the badness, and sink down, or just laugh at the absurdity of it all, get cynical – and do nothing constructive to fix problems.
