Thank you, Artful Pauper, for your attempt at streamlining my discussion with Prismatic567. I think you have understood and clarified what Iâm driving at.
Now in order to understand what I asked there, it may be helpful to know that I subsequently thought I had been mistaken. I had taken the phrase âmoral impulsesâ, for example, to mean that you considered these impulses moral, as opposed to immoral. In other words, I had taken your use of the word âmoralâ to be prescriptive. Then, however, I came to think that I had probably been mistaken; that I had read that prescription into your words, and that you had really meant the word âmoralâ in a purely descriptive senseâthat you had called those impulses moral because they pertained to the phenomenon we just happen to call âmoralityâ. Those impulses were then only moral in the sense that the impulse to breathe, for instance, is non-moral.
Since then, Iâve been trying to determine whether your proposition was indeed merely descriptive. Your continuing failure to understand what Iâm saying, however, (which may indeed be at least as much my fault as yours) has kept me in doubtâhas kept suggesting to me that your proposition was prescriptive after all. To make sure it was descriptive, I might ask at this point: Do you consider humanityâs survival a good thing, a value, at all? Do you not just consider it a fact? Just as Darwinism, for example, does not consider the dodoâs extinction a bad thing, but just a fact?
At this point, Iâm afraid that I may not have been mistaken initially at all. Perhaps you do not understand what Iâm driving at because you consider the items on your list to be obviously good. In order to clarify my problem with that, I will share with you part of a Facebook discussion from November 2012. Iâm Oliver.
[size=95]Chad: âOliver, I would have thought that, if a moral theory entails that, say, the Emperor Palpatine (from Star Wars) is some kind of moral exemplar, then this would constitute a decisive counterexample to the theory. Is your idea that Nâs moral theory is somehow impervious (even in principle) to counterexamples? Is this true generally of all moral theories on your view? Do you think it would be reasonable for an act utilitarian, for example, to simply ignore the standard counterexamples to his view?â
Oliver: âYes, because counterexamples presuppose a given moral standard.â
Chad: âSuppose then that I said that there is exactly one thing that is morally wrong: wearing a wristwatch. How else could you refute this theory than by pointing out that it is open to obvious counterexamples?â
(This comment was liked by Dereck.)
Oliver: âNo, suppose that I said that thing about wearing a wristwatch. Now give me a counterexample.â
Chad: âNo problem. A man rapes a woman while wearing no wristwatch. Thatâs a case in which the proposed (absurd) analysis is clearly going to fail. For something wrong has obviously been done in this case, but the theory entails the falsehood that no wrong action has been performed.â
Oliver: âNothing wrong has been done, since the only thing that is morally wrong is wearing a wristwatch. Itâs fine for a man to rape a woman.â[/size]
Everyone has a monopoly on questioning. Everyone is allowed to ask questions. Everyone has the right to note that his questions are not sufficiently answered.
thats again, debatlable. if everyone has a right to monopoly only a capacity to attain it will prevent chaos. therefore lack of capacity is a saving grace.
of what do capacity consists of? a masure of strength , mixed with convincing rhetoric gaining popular
support. Minus that hostility is engendered by frustraion, and that stymied can and does at times result in open conflict. that is not the aim of dialogue.
Noted your reservation.
Personally I am not claiming to be an expert. I hope I can be an expert but I think that will take some time provided I keep at reading and revising Kantâs philosophy constantly and consistently. One of the problem with trying to master Kant is by the time one move on to concentrate to read the 2nd Critique on Morals, one is likely to loose grip on finer nuance points in the first critique. When one move on to the 3rd critique, one also loose the grasp on the other two. So constant refreshing is very necessary.
What I am comparing with other readers of Kant is based on some degree of objective comparison of actual efforts put into reading Kant assuming we are average learners [not genius].
On that basis, objectively [roughly] there is a difference in oneâs understanding of Kant between one who has spent 5000+ hours full-time basis and another who has spent 600 hours.
I personally have spent round 5000 hours full-time on reading Kant.
It is very difficult to gain a comprehensive understanding of Kantâs ideas in its full perspective.
Henry E Alison a supposedly Kant scholar expert with 40 years of experience still missed [he acknowledge that] a critical point as pointed out by one of his student.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zfsKYRIzhg[/youtube]
I mentioned elsewhere the Kantian System of Morals and Ethics is too far ahead of its and our time. Nevertheless the categorical imperative is manifesting partially in principle in fact and reality, subliminally if not consciously.
I dare say you do not understand [not necessary agree] Kantâs Categorical Imperative fully, that is why your views in it fall short and thus are straw-man(s). It is not easy for you to get onto the same boat unless you have put in your fair share of effort to understand Kantâs philosophy systematically. [not independently]
Here are some rough points and hopefully you get some ideas of what the CI is really about;
There are 5 formulations of the CI. [policies]
The CIs are not expected to imperative nor enforceable in practice, they are merely guides.
To put the CI in actual action, one need to formulate Maxims, enforceable Laws and rules that are parallel and in alignment with the CI.
The Maxims are then translated into strategies to be executed in practice.
Actual results are compared with the Maxims.
Gaps and variances are to be closed via corrective steps [or punishment if necessary] on the principle of continuous improvement.
For example note the first formulation of the CI [1], Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction.
Within Kantâs philosophy, the formulation of the CI [1-5] is referred as the Moral [Pure] aspects.
The practice aspects of the Kantian system is referred to Ethics [Applied]
If one has a maxim, e.g. âKilling is permissible.â
If this maxim is made into a universal law that is WILLed and activated by all rational beings at the SAME TIME, then that will result in the extinction of the human species after the last man dies.
Therefore in alignment with CI [I], the general Maxim should be âKilling is not permissible.â
But the fact is we must face reality.
Thus we need cater for variations and conditions in real life by codifying Laws and rules that made provision for exceptions where certain killings can be legal.
The point here is CI[1] is universal and will not change, but the Maxims, Laws and Rules can be changed to adapt to changing time and conditions.
In dealing with closing the variances and gaps, one can use and apply the utilitarianism, consequentialism, principles under the umbrella of the CI.
The problem is you did not bother to read and understand Kantâs critically philosophy in totality.
Note the Kantian process;
Kant start his Moral and Ethic systems from observations and empirical evidence.
From this empirical sphere he used philosophy to abstract the universal principles.
Then he put these universal principles through the metaphysical tests.
Once the universal principles are derived he retested them within the empirical sphere.
The above is exactly how Science and Mathematic deal with their Pure and Applied aspects.
If you are still not convinced, read up Kant thoroughly to confirm what I had stated above!
Btw, I am not claiming there is a total elimination of those practices at present.
I said over the last 100 years, if not try stretching it back to last 1000, 5000, 50,000 years or the time homo-sapiens first emerged.
If you draw a graph of the various traits, there is an increasing and net trend. Btw, I am referring to humanity on a global basis not specific locations or groups.
If you compare China and elsewhere they donât behead anyone as easily as they do 1,000 years or more ago.
One element for consideration from the neural perspective is the evolution of mirror neurons in primates and human being.
What is âgoodâ is leveraged against the sustaining and preservation of the individual and therefrom the species. This is grounded on the Categorical Imperative [note 1-5] I discussed in the earlier post.
That is the general idea. Note the idea of Good is that which opposed âevilâ in the secular sense is a very complicated issue involving the Summum Bonum, i.e. what is the highest unconditional good. Next you may ask what is âEvil.â To understand what is âevilâ one need to do extensive research and define what it meant by âevil.â For example, it is obvious âgenocideâ is evil and cannot be good as a universal law. Genocide as a good universal law would imply the extinction of the human specie. The other aspect is to present a taxonomy of evil to encompass all necessary elements of evil.
It is not that âsurvivalâ is good.
What is âgoodâ is that which is aligned and support the preservation of the individual and the species [i.e. humanity] in the optimal sense.
Those trends that I mentioned are not exhaustive, but the relevance is whatever it takes to be âgoodâ that will contribute the survival of the individual and the specie.
What is good need to be aligned with the Categorical Imperative where one of them is as follows; Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction.
Any trend or actions that do support the above is not considered âgoodâ per se.
According to Kantâs Moral system all rational individuals should strive to act in accordance with the above CI.
However within the Kantian System, it is recognized in reality the individual human can never conform to the above and thus humanity must re-align the CI with Maxims [not mathematical sense], Laws and rules to reconcile the empirical with the rational.
In this case, relative to the current conditions, what is âgoodâ is conditioned upon compliance with the Laws and rules implemented.
Nevertheless there should be an awareness of the gap between what is categorical good and legally & ethically good. Humanity must thus take step to increase the Moral Quotient of the individual to narrow this gap. The question is how to narrow the gap and we should towards Science, philosophy and adoption of other advancing knowledge to expedite the manifestation of the moral impulse within.
I have explained above what is the categorical good, i.e. a near absolute good, the highest good, the Summum Bonum.
Then we have the relative good with applied Ethics which is subject to continuous improvement. A greater understanding of the Kantian system will enable humanity to expedite and narrow the gap between the categorical good [Moral -OUGHT] and the relative empirical practical good [Ethical-IS].
Coherence and cogent??
Frankly I am only interested in discussing Kant for my own selfish interest as a means of a refresher. I am not interested in convincing anyone when the subject is so complicated, complex and difficult to understand.
If you need coherence and cogency, you yourself will need to do the hard work of understanding [not necessary agree] what Kant is about. This is also to ensure I am presenting an accurate representation of Kantâs ideas as I generally one cannot merely to accept the words of the other by faith or even arguments.
I think our line of discussion has somewhat been twisted like an tight bundle of fishing lines.
I have gone into more details of the Kantian system of Moral and Ethics in my last two posts and also explained what I meant by âgoodâ.
Perhaps you could pick up again from the later posts and raised your disagreements again anew.
Note again, the Kantian System comprised two aspects, i.e.
Moral - formulation of the Pure and universal principles [only five, 3 mains and two subs]
Ethics - the applied empirical aspects of the diversified actual human conditions.
The Kantian system provides sophisticated strategies to reconcile the Moral [OUGHT] and the Ethics [IS], thus resolving Humeâs dilemma.
The Moral aspect is strictly referring to the universal principles of the Categorical Principles only.
Perhaps I may have mixed the two up somewhere and caused confusion. If so, take note of the above strict distinction and dichotomy, i.e. Moral is strictly Moral and Ethics is strictly related to the practices and empirical.
All of this talk about how one needs to study Kant for thousands of hours and that one needs to know the German language, if one is to truly understand Kant, kind of reminds me of how Christian and Muslim apologists will say similar things, when they feel threatened. For example: An atheist will point out a contradiction or something unflattering about the Quran, and the Islamic apologist will just resort to, say, " You need to read the Quran in Arabic in order to understand that ".
I havenât read the CPR and Iâm sure Kantâs philosophy is nuanced, but Iâm confident that I understand the gist of his major themes.
1.) Space/time are parts of our â spectacles ', not things that exists independent of the mind.
2.) There is a phenomenal world, i.e., the world we experience â and there is a noumenonal world, that is to say, a world we donât/canât experience, as it is beyond our spectacles.
That is as the Prolegomena, which has been anaylized to be a defense to the Critique. But what of the corpus of my argument, which was implied, and consisted of historicism, vis. the interweaving of philosophical successions between Kant, Hegel, and Nietzche? It has never been answered, and i too, do not wish to continue to beat a dead horse. For those, who missed, skipped over, or ignored the argument, read the above, however, Eric, Your comments are a noteworthy core idea, which has effected the evolution of German Idealism in general.
I am very late to this party, but having read both, N is a far better philosopher.
Kant is boring, pedantic and wrong and books like his critique are some of the worst written
books of all time and that is in English. I have tried reading the German version and got nowhere
mainly because it is worse in German. I read the critique along with Smithâs book âcommentary on
Kant critiqueâ at the same time. took me 6 months to get through it. Philosophers like Kaufman dislike
Kant immensely and show why in books like âdiscovery of the mindâ three volumes.
That is pretty much right, Erik, although i.e. the differences between two Germanic languages are not as large as the differences between i.e one Germanic language and one Romanic language. Very huge are the differences between one Indogermanic language and i.e. one Afroasiatic language.
To know i.e. the language of the Koran is very useful in order to understand the Muslims and their religion, their âspiritual exerciseâ (Peter Sloterdijk).
To study Kant does not necessarily mean to invest âthousands of hoursâ, but you need more time for studying Kant, if you do not know the German language, than you need, if you know the German language. So it is a huge adavantage to know the German language when it coems to understand Kant, his country, his culture, and - last but not least - his philosophy. This does not only concern the time you need or other special aspects but also general aspects.
Here, a comment above comes to mind between persciptive and descriptive uses of language. To understand Kant in terms of a perscription, is notany more inferior to a descriptive use, at all, the idea of Kant is borne by his very literally intended connecting the two! This was i believe Suwellos intention of saying that Prismatic was thought to have proposed an argument desriptively.In my min a prescription is proper lacking in Kant, in as much he fails to forsee the consequences , the oughts,of his Humean disconnect between causes and effects. Since we are;talking about the greates merit attributed to Kant,vis, his morally categorical truths, he has crossed, de-ontoligized morality into pure intuition,
That is why questions as to waht âgoodâ is came repeatably about, and that isKantâs big problem. History did not prove him right, and excepting a few adherents, including Polanyi, the thing fails miserably. Nietzche took advantage of this flaw,and if Kant would have been greater, he SHOULD have forseen this as one casual possibility.
If a child has to go to a foreign country, then it will soon be adapted to this country - mainly because of the learned language.
That is not debatable at all, my friend.
Learning a language (the first one, the second one, ⊠and so on) has always consequences, and this consequences are nearly always positve consequences.
Do you mean it is obvious that genocide is evil and cannot be good as a universal law, or do you mean it is obvious that genocide is evil because it cannot be good as a universal law?
It is obvious that genocide as a good universal law would imply the extinction of the human species. This, however, suggests that the Categorical Imperative rests on examples like the genocide example. Why would the extinction of the human species be a bad thing? Is it because individuals should (according to Kant) always be treated as ends in themselves? Also, does the fact that an act cannot be good as a universal law necessarily mean that it is evil? Canât it be, like, neutral?
I think itâs a bit unfortunate to choose the word âoptimalâ here, considering that itâs from the Latin word for âbestâ, so using it means using the defined (âgoodâ) in the definition (good < better < best). Also, I donât understand what you mean by it. If you were just talking about the species, then I could understand how the preservation of all individuals could be said to be more optimal than the preservation of only a single individual (or two, a man and a woman, so that the species can in theory be preserved indefinitely). But as you speak of the individual as well as the species, Iâm not sure what you mean. Do you mean that comfortable preservation would be more optimal than uncomfortable preservation? Also, is the preservation of the species good inasmuch as it entails the preservation of individuals, or is the preservation of individuals a means to the preservation of the species? I ask this because the maxim that says individuals should be treated as ends in themselves might itself be a mere means to something else. Please confirm that it is not.
But as for absolute goodness, is what is good good because it is aligned with the Categorical Imperative, or is there a goodâthe highest good, the Summum Bonumâon which even the Categorical Imperative is based?
In that post, you say:
Iâm not interested in what you call Ethics [Applied], only in what you call Morals [Pure]. Now this example again supposes that the extinction of the human species is a bad thing. Iâm inquiring into nothing less than the basis (ground, foundation) of the Categorical Imperative. Why should the fact that I do not want to be killed compel me not to kill others?