You repeat this without demonstration. I have already shown above it is incorrect. See below:
What I am saying is that in the way you have formulated the imperative about killing, there is no ought involved (which is not to conflate ought and is).
You say, if “killing is permissible” is willed by people it will result in the extinction of humanity.
I am saying, in the context of the example you gave, the imperative “killing is permissible” does not imply an ought.
To bring ought into this context would mean framing the imperative as “you should kill”. But even that does not imply that one will kill, so in that case I would not be conflating ought and is either, I would be separating them.
The only way for an imperative to necessitate killing (melding the ought of an imperative with an is) would be if it was phrased as something like “Kill” in the sense of a demand, which was then willed as an imperative.
What I had said (which it seems kind of strange to restate it because I thought it was clear) is that, just because it to be permissible does not mean that it is necessary.
So, the imperative that it is permissible to kill does not necessitate the result that people will kill each other. Which is separating the is from the ought, not conflating them.
Saying that killing is permissible is equivalent to saying “You can kill”, can is different than ought (should), and will.
I can kill this person — I should kill this person — I will kill this person.
I am separating them. On the contrary, I would assert that you are conflating can and will (They can kill each other with they will kill each other).
You seem to be implying here that the categorical imperative is for use as some kind of measuring or gauging tool, but I don’t think these two are comparable in a useful sense.
The application of the concept of triangles in empirical situations is based off other criteria than the model of equilateral triangles. If an equilateral triangle was necessary by application it would be determined in the context of the situation, not by the foreknowledge of its existence as an imperative to use equilateral triangles.
In this sense I question the usefulness of the categorical imperative. You say:
and by saying so you mean that we address the empirical reality with reasoning (which in your statement above would be done by whichever parties would formulate exceptions and by the judiciary). If the categorical imperatives are just to be put aside as empirical reality approaches, there is no real reason for creating them in the first place. All one would really need is a goal or conclusion in order to examine the situation and decide on the best course of action to reach that goal or conclusion, and the categorical imperative can be done away with entirely. But it is first up to reason to decide what constitutes a worthwhile goal and consider whether diverse held goals contradict each other.
Here you say something similar to what I’ve said above, in terms of setting a goal, but what I am saying is that the categorical imperative is not needed for what you have set as your conclusion to the process:
“We will analyze the root cause of these killing and find preventive measure to reduce the number to as close as possible to the [quite] impossible ought of zero.”
This is an argument for the analytic process, and my argument is also for the analytic process which is used to decide goals (the what and the why) and figure out how the goals can be acheived in empirical situations. The categorical imperative seems like an extra addition without real use, because the goal has already been set by which the outcome (and by relation to the outcome the modes of action) is measured.
What I am taking issue with is the assertion that there should be some need to create a categorical imperative, which we immediately disregard based on “empirical reality”, why not just skip the categoral imperative and simply use the critical and analytic faculties (which to my mind are going to be determined by irrational desires) to decide on a goal, analyze the empirical factors to generate solutions, then measure the solutions based by weighing the outcome against the goal, with consideration of empirical factors?
What I was pointing out is not that these things haven’t reduced, but that despite their occurence humanity has continued to survive, including in the countries where these still take place, and so I see no reason to conclude absolutely that the disappearance of these trends have sustained humanity’s survival in a way which their continuance would not have, particularly since China where a lot of these practices still take place has the highest population in the world.
My argument against this is the same as what I have given above against the categorical imperative, which is that if by some human reasoning we would forego the conclusions of the imperative, there is no reason for the imperative to begin with but only for the critical and analytical faculties be applied to empirical circumstances to accomplish an (analytically) chosen goal.
Breathing is a critical necessity for survival, but should we not subject even survival to rational inquiry to understand if and how survival is good?
I would personally maintain that humans are not at the base rational creatures, we are driven by irrational desires and subject to our instincts (survival being one of them). In this sense we can say “I desire life”, but it does not follow that because we desire a thing it is good, else by the same reasoning whatever someone desired would be good which I think can be proven false by the fact that some of our desires contradict our own and those of others.
Also, what is a “normal” person? What criteria are you basing that on, is it on something like a majority of the population? If that is the case, if the majority of the population desired genocide or even human’s extinction, would that then be normal? If not, could you please describe for me what criteria you are basing the classification “normal” on.
So now I have above posed a new question, which is, what is the need of what you call “transcendental pure reason” if we can deal analytically with empirical reality?
And I will add two more:
Where do the concepts that inform and compose the judgements of transcendental pure reason come from? (concepts such as normal, good, etc.)?
and,
How can we be sure that the concepts we are using in transcendent rational thought reflect the reality of the world around us in such a way as to make them useful?
I don’t think this follows. You say that the categorical imperative is put aside in empirical situations and when laws and maxims need to take their place, and presumably the categorical imperative is put aside for the sake of decisions (from a judiciary for example) because they could correct inflexibility of the categorical imperative in such occassions when survival is endangered and the categorical imperative does not cover the situation.
In that case (of overriding the categorical imperative) the reason would presumably for survival or some “greater good” (than would be served by following it). But if this is the case then what is good is not determined by its adherance to the imperative as you imply but by some other reason which determines when it is permissible to deviate from it.
Besides this, we still haven’t answered what is good? and why is it good?
The example of the NBA team implies that the individuals who make up the team have voluntarily chosen to enter the team and strive for its collective goal, whereas the categorical imperative makes general statements about how one should live.
An imperative such as “One should not kill” may not be in the interest of a particular individual who could benefit from killing, so when I asked for a reason why one should comply with the categorical imperative what I was looking for was a reason why an individual, for example, should not give the appearance that he is innocent to his peers (to escape their condemnation) while secretly committing murder, provided he was certain he could get away with it?
In the case of Kant, it is not because Kant said so. Kant merely highlighted the natural moral impulse within the individual and humanity and presented it very systematically. It is up to the rational and complete individual to understand the principles involved and strive to rewire his/her brain [this is the critical phase we need to consider now into the future] to align with the CI optimally.
Okay, so you are making a statement here about human nature and asserting that it is moral. I am wondering how you explain ‘immorality’ and in particular ‘immorality’ in successful individuals?
And, by what measure do you determine with certainty that humanity is moving toward a state of increased morality? Another empirical example I can bring up is practices of torture used by the US in Guantanamo. The US has had a recent history (so far as the public knows anyway) of not using torture but yet readopted this practice that, if I am not incorrect, your analysis would view as outmoded. So do you see a reason why there would be a reversion to such behaviour, if the moral instinct as you have described it is inbuilt in the human species?
there is no question of accepting the CI because it is inherent within humans.
Some of you other following statements such as above refer to human nature so my questions above should cover this for now.
As for contradiction, I hope you understood my explanations above why there is no contradiction.
Well, we’re not quite there yet. I have no antagonism towards your conclusions, but since they don’t align with my own I suppose we will have to see it through with discussion.