kant's categorical imperative

[RickWhite]

Has anyone here heard of him or studied him? What do you think of his ideas?

What do you think of the notion that one should always conduct their self as if they would want everyone to follow their example?

How does this relate to society and to what policies are good or bad?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative

 

[upnorth2505]

Has anyone here heard of him or studied him? What do you think of his ideas?

What do you think of the notion that one should always conduct their self as if they would want everyone to follow their example?

How does this relate to society and to what policies are good or bad?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative

I would answer, but no matter what I say, it will be turned against me.

Then, as always happens with your posts, the writings of Kant will be used to justify discrimination against women, minorities, and gays.

 

[jeffchr]

I haven't heard of him. But I will follow your cues. I believe everyone should conduct themselves in such a manner as to deserve respect from their peers. That would be a most honorable way of living. Hopefully, upnorth2505 is wrong. I doubt it. But, I'll read and post in-a-bit. Peace.

 

[jeffchr]

Alright, here is my initial reaction. I read, in your link "The categorical imperative is the central philosophical concept in the moral philosophy of Immanuel Kant, as well as modern deontological ethics.

So I looked up deontological ethics at Wikipedia where I read "Deontological ethics or deontology (from Greek δέον, deon, "obligation, duty"; and -λογία, -logia) is an approach to ethics that judges the morality of an action based on the action's adherence to a rule or rules. Deontologists look at rules[1] and duties."

I immediately thought "that doesn't sound right". Morality should be judged by results, not by rules. Then I read...."Deontological ethics is commonly contrasted with consequentialist or teleological ethical theories, according to which the rightness of an action is determined by its consequences."

.... which only validated my initial impression.

So, this seams to be some pretty complex philosophical thought. What's your point?

 

[RickWhite]

Must there be a single point? I can't imagine reading Kant and coming up with "a point."

One thing I think of is the notion of moral ideals. Should society hold certain things up as being ideal even if they aren't necessarily the norm?

If there were statistics showing that most people steal would it be right to denounce honesty? What if someone said, "that honesty stuff is a hill of beans - most people steal so we should stop promoting honesty. After all, doesn't that make us all hypocrites?"

See, in my mind we should always respect ideals and hold them up as an example for all to live by, even if nobody really does. Now in Kant's view, I think he meant we should be the ideal. But falling short of this, I think we should have at least have enough sense to promote the ideal even when we personally fall short.


That's one of the things I think of anyway.


BTW, deontilogicalism and consequentialism are not competing theories. They are different ways of drawing ethical conclusions and both are right and wrong in different ways. Some things are right or wrong simply because they are (deontilogical), others are right because of the results (consequntailist).

What if we could genetically modify a person to be a slave but be perfectly happy being one - would that be ethical or right? See, there is no consequence, but it would be wrong never the less.

 

[jeffchr]

Must there be a single point? I can't imagine reading Kant and coming up with "a point."

One thing I think of is the notion of moral ideals. Should society hold certain things up as being ideal even if they aren't necessarily the norm?

If there were statistics showing that most people steal would it be right to denounce honesty? What if someone said, "that honesty stuff is a hill of beans - most people steal so we should stop promoting honesty. After all, doesn't that make us all hypocrites?"

See, in my mind we should always respect ideals and hold them up as an example for all to live by, even if nobody really does. Now in Kant's view, I think he meant we should be the ideal. But falling short of this, I think we should have at least have enough sense to promote the ideal even when we personally fall short.


That's one of the things I think of anyway.


BTW, deontilogicalism and consequentialism are not competing theories. They are different ways of drawing ethical conclusions and both are right and wrong in different ways. Some things are right or wrong simply because they are (deontilogical), others are right because of the results (consequntailist).

What if we could genetically modify a person to be a slave but be perfectly happy being one - would that be ethical or right? See, there is no consequence, but it would be wrong never the less.

OK fair enough. I wasn't really looking for Kant's point, but your's.

Should society "hold certain things up"? Meaning legally? I think so.

"Even if they aren't necessarily the norm". Think driving without traffic laws. The norm would probably pretty chaotic and hazardous. So sure.

Another consideration is who's ideals does society adopt to "hold up". Democracy is a from of government which, when it works, adopts the "ideals" of the majority.

As a side note, I think there would be consequences to genetically engineering a content slave.

 

[RickWhite]

I think Kant argued that the ideals, or values we uphold should be ones that can be deducted based on reason. In many instances, a good way to look at it is to ask the question of what the world would be like were everyone to follow your example. Littering is a great example.

Religion, in my best observation, is an attempt to simplify the onerous task of reasoning through every issue in life in terms of the end result. Moreover, it takes into account that which is deontilogical in nature. Suppose there were to come a time when women were paid to produce feti (sp?) for the purpose of harvesting stem cells. Since there is no immediate consequence, we would be forced to discuss our perception of the sanctity of human life which would beg the question of whether or not human life is sacred in the first place. Eventually we must just pick an axiom such as human life being sacred. The notion that God said so is within the grasp of far more people than is the philosophy of Kant and many others.

Most people can identify only the most direct consequences of a given policy. The question of how this will affect society in the end or in the larger picture is beyond their grasp - for these people religion often serves as a good shortcut. But not just religion; depending on social norms, mores and traditions also serve as a great shortcut and these things should be respected by even those of us with a greater insight. After all, building on framework that is handed off to us will usually produce a better result that if every individual had to start from square one. Though many are fond of starting over, and often mistake this as "thinking for one's self" it is doubtful they will ever even reach the point at which they could have begun were their horizons broad enough to know of people like Kant.

 

[Jack in the Bud]

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/kant--immanuel.html

 

[Antidisestablishmentarian]

[youtube]xQycQ8DABvc[/youtube]

 

[RickWhite]

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/kant--immanuel.html

Ayn Rand was a dunce. The basic underlying premise of all of her philosophy, if you want to call it that, was that everyone ought to think only of themselves and what is good for their self. She went even further to suggest that even when we do good for others it is only from the selfish need to feel good about what we have done, as it should be.

This completely undermines the notion of caring for another human being and implies that the other people in our lives are mere objects.

So, in other words, Rand believed that a mother's love for her child only exists because the mother derives personal pleasure from her child's existence. Pure hogwash.

 

[jeffchr]

I think Kant argued that the ideals, or values we uphold should be ones that can be deducted based on reason. In many instances, a good way to look at it is to ask the question of what the world would be like were everyone to follow your example. Littering is a great example.

Religion, in my best observation, is an attempt to simplify the onerous task of reasoning through every issue in life in terms of the end result. Moreover, it takes into account that which is deontilogical in nature. Suppose there were to come a time when women were paid to produce feti (sp?) for the purpose of harvesting stem cells. Since there is no immediate consequence, we would be forced to discuss our perception of the sanctity of human life which would beg the question of whether or not human life is sacred in the first place. Eventually we must just pick an axiom such as human life being sacred. The notion that God said so is within the grasp of far more people than is the philosophy of Kant and many others.

Most people can identify only the most direct consequences of a given policy. The question of how this will affect society in the end or in the larger picture is beyond their grasp - for these people religion often serves as a good shortcut. But not just religion; depending on social norms, mores and traditions also serve as a great shortcut and these things should be respected by even those of us with a greater insight. After all, building on framework that is handed off to us will usually produce a better result that if every individual had to start from square one. Though many are fond of starting over, and often mistake this as "thinking for one's self" it is doubtful they will ever even reach the point at which they could have begun were their horizons broad enough to know of people like Kant.

I believe religion serves that very purpose and historically, perhaps, even more so. Religion does have a propensity to also charter consequences that infringe. For instance, the modern Catholic position on divorce, baptism, marriage (within the religion), abortion, politics (intrusive), and pedophilia. The good probably balances the bad quite nicely, but separation of church and state is also mandatory, imo.

 

[RickWhite]

I believe religion serves that very purpose and historically, perhaps, even more so. Religion does have a propensity to also charter consequences that infringe. For instance, the modern Catholic position on divorce, baptism, marriage (within the religion), abortion, politics (intrusive), and pedophilia. The good probably balances the bad quite nicely, but separation of church and state is also mandatory, imo.

You must understand that your understanding of "religion" and mine are quite different. Jews don't have too many of the far out views that you are used to. Although the Orthodox do tend to look down their nose at the rest of us - but at least they do so silently.

My biggest criticism of religion is that it often drives a wedge between people and that is bad.

Separation of Church and state is very important and protects religion as well as the State. The Protestant Reformation had to do with political corruption in the Church.

At any rate, although I doubt any religion is the word of God, I do believe that in many ways it gets us about as close as we can get. Judaism is a very philosophical religion - so much so that few can understand it. The term "Rabbi" literally means "teacher."

What you are familiar with is probably the result of people trying to interpret the Bible without understanding the context from which it came. Most of what Jesus said and did only makes sense in the context of Jewish philosophy and law. One must be versed in these things to interpret anything in the Bible.

When people attempt to interpret the Bible without this necessary background, they get all kind of crazy ideas and wind up holding up snakes and talking in tongs and what not.

I have read very little in the bible, OT or NT that did not contain a lesson from which we can learn, but I understand the context. I can see how those who do not see what I see.

For instance, when Adam ate the apple. Taken literally, the whole story makes no sense. but figuratively, it speaks volumes. It speaks about the nature of man and the capacity for evil that comes with our ability to think. Only a sentient being is capable of evil correct? A crocodile, mean as it is can not be evil - that is an ability unique to man.

Buy ya, if all you see in that story is a goofy story about "original sin" as a prelude to a guy who would come along and accept punishment on your behalf, I can see how it would make no sense.

 

[jeffchr]

I don't have an understanding of religion at all. More precisely, I don't understand religious people. I can understand religion a millenium ago before science could explain natural phenomenon. There was a need to make sense out of unknown events.

Not any more. Experience can be explained. I grew up in a Christian-lite household. I think our congregation, generally, appreciated church for the social values and most had vague concepts of God.

In many instances, I think religion is just a coping mechanism for the final event in life.

How else to explain so many subscribers to a belief in an apocryphal God. Considering all the harm religion brings, I am not so sure that the benefits are worth the wars and frauds and misinformation. But that's me.

If all religion were to become obsolete chaos could ensue.

 

[undertheice]

Rand believed that a mother's love for her child only exists because the mother derives personal pleasure from her child's existence. Pure hogwash.

is that so far from the truth? if we consider our children and our family to be an extension of ourselves, can't we then consider our affections toward them as merely an expression of self-love and a natural action designed to perpetuate our own immortality?

 

[beardo]

i think his ideas are intresting. i believe his theory that right and wrong are determined by the persons understanding or intentions. i dont think that obliges society to accept ones actions eventhough the person whos actions are in question may view them as correct

 

[ChChoda]

is that so far from the truth? if we consider our children and our family to be an extension of ourselves, can't we then consider our affections toward them as merely an expression of self-love and a natural action designed to perpetuate our own immortality?

The mantra, "I don't do it for the money, I do it to help people...", is the same kind of situation. Because this culprit has a strong desire for self gratification, they pursue activities that serve this particular addiction. Although essentially, this craving is no different than a craving for physical wealth. Yet it's held up as compassionate, while the "greedy" pursuits, which do much more to contribute to personal and social well being, are denigrated.

 

[RickWhite]

is that so far from the truth? if we consider our children and our family to be an extension of ourselves, can't we then consider our affections toward them as merely an expression of self-love and a natural action designed to perpetuate our own immortality?

I get her philosophy, and she was right in a lot of ways. But, you have to take it with a grain of salt. There are many examples of purely selfless acts. Even if there is no purely selfless act her philosophy still sucks.

 

[RickWhite]

I don't have an understanding of religion at all. More precisely, I don't understand religious people. I can understand religion a millenium ago before science could explain natural phenomenon. There was a need to make sense out of unknown events.

Not any more. Experience can be explained. I grew up in a Christian-lite household. I think our congregation, generally, appreciated church for the social values and most had vague concepts of God.

In many instances, I think religion is just a coping mechanism for the final event in life.

How else to explain so many subscribers to a belief in an apocryphal God. Considering all the harm religion brings, I am not so sure that the benefits are worth the wars and frauds and misinformation. But that's me.

If all religion were to become obsolete chaos could ensue.

Many people perceive it that way. I blame a lot of that on the people who do such a poor job in representing it. I find a wealth of wisdom in religion even if I were to assume there is in fact no God.

Whenever I donate money I do so anonymously because of Jewish wisdom which teaches that only anonymous giving can be considered true charity.

I also live by the motto that we are judged by how he treat the least among us. Many people treat the rich and powerful well because they are acting in their own self interest - they are thinking of what they might receive in return. When you do for the weak and the poor, you can expect nothing in return - so, it is here that our good nature is measured.

This is pure wisdom IMO.

 

[ChChoda]

When you do for the weak and the poor, you can expect nothing in return...

The reward is knowing that your good will will go unreciprocated.

 

[undertheice]

I get her philosophy, and she was right in a lot of ways. But, you have to take it with a grain of salt. There are many examples of purely selfless acts. Even if there is no purely selfless act her philosophy still sucks.

so even if she is correct, it still sucks? we would rather live with a denial of our situation than admit that even our most charitable actions are nothing more than the product of our basest desires? just go ahead and admit it, it's a liberating experience. admit that we are no better or worse than the slithering creatures beneath our feet and that our altruism is nothing but a crock of shit. you can try to escape it and become a greater man, but you'll only realize that even that quest is still based in the selfish desire to be more than you are. give up and realize that there's nothing wrong with being what we are. we are not gods. our self-interest is an integral part of our humanity and a necessity for the survival of the species. you can consider it a sin when taken to extremes, but you can't escape it.