Kant had a nifty trick. The moral imperative. Behave as you would if your actions were to become universal.
So moralistic questions become: What would happen if everyone stole? What would happen if everyone murdered? What would happen if everyone enslaved?
This ethical tool even works for naturalists.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Kant had a nifty trick. The moral imperative. Behave as you would if your actions were to become universal.
So moralistic questions become: What would happen if everyone stole? What would happen if everyone murdered? What would happen if everyone enslaved?
This ethical tool even works for naturalists.[/quote]
Does that mean that radical Muslims should indeed kill Christians, since they want everyone to kill Christians?
Even a rule like that with no absolute backing, falls apart.
[quote]Mostly because it doesn’t exist. :o) On top of this, I really want to see a cite that shows that people who are religious are anti-social. I suspect that it is people who are self-righteous that are and there is a world of difference between them.
Look, IQ was supposed to measure an immutable thing called intelligence. The issue is that intelligence is not a thing, it is a combination of factors – one of the most important of which is learning. The finely graded IQs of various ethnic groups are, well, racist. Sorry, but I’m going to call you on this. (You’ll have to convince me that all of thinking can be reduced meaningfully to a single number and that you have a reliable way to measure it. Best of luck, 'cause you’re gonna need it pal.) [/quote]
Speaking of common sense, how does it make sense that despite humans leaving Africa and traveling throughout the globe throughout the past 50,000 years, living in different environments, developing different features from group-to-group (slanted/round eyes, black/blonde hair, dark skin/light skin, short/tall, more muscular/less muscular), we all ended up with identical levels of intelligence from group to group?
If you can complete that thought experiment and still conclude that, “Yes, human evolution stopped at the neck,” than perhaps you should start defering judgment to your dog as well.
The IQs are not “finely graded.” They vary by as many as several standard deviations from group to group. I’m not sure what you mean by “IQ is racist.”
I don’t think you can defend this statement from the patterns found in the human genome. The examples I gave correspond to some adaptive advantage over another group + more group ruthlessness than another group (Bantu expansion, Ghengis Khan, Viking expansion throughout northern Europe and Russia, proto-Indo-European expansion)
I might add the Arab expansion in the 7th century to that list. They were certainly successful from an evolutionary standpoint because of their plain ruthlessness and social organization, but mostly their ruthlessness.
Oh, and European expansion through the Americas. We had genetic disease resistance + smarts + the ruthlessness to exploit both to the advantage of our offspring.
My point is that if we’re to look at world history honestly, we would have to agree that the strong prey on the weak and helpless, steal their stuff and kill them to propagate their genes. I don’t think this is a good morality lesson for any of us.
This is probably another good read for you:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Kant had a nifty trick. The moral imperative. Behave as you would if your actions were to become universal.
So moralistic questions become: What would happen if everyone stole? What would happen if everyone murdered? What would happen if everyone enslaved?
This ethical tool even works for naturalists.
Does that mean that radical Muslims should indeed kill Christians, since they want everyone to kill Christians?
Even a rule like that with no absolute backing, falls apart.[/quote]
The fundemental question about murder, in general, still remains – or even the opposite corollary: What if every Christian killed Muslims?
Or we could even apply ethical reciprocity to it: What if everyone treated everyone with the same respect they would want for themselves?
Most people behave in accordance with ethical reciprocity and the moral imperative without even realizing it just due to the nature of living in a world of “cause and effect.”
But I believe the question posed by the OP was answered. Moral education does not necessarily need to be grounded in religion. In fact, when it is we get questions like the one you posed to me.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Kant had a nifty trick. The moral imperative. Behave as you would if your actions were to become universal.
So moralistic questions become: What would happen if everyone stole? What would happen if everyone murdered? What would happen if everyone enslaved?
This ethical tool even works for naturalists.[/quote]
You’re still expressing things in terms of preferences. “What if everyone stole?” Well, so what? That only has meaning for me if I prefer that people don’t steal. What if I prefer to kill? What if I prefer to be the guy to kill enough people to terrify the rest into going along with my system of morality? Sure, if everyone were like me, my strategy wouldn’t be successful. But so what? I have the “will to power” to make it happen.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Kant had a nifty trick. The moral imperative. Behave as you would if your actions were to become universal.
So moralistic questions become: What would happen if everyone stole? What would happen if everyone murdered? What would happen if everyone enslaved?
This ethical tool even works for naturalists.
You’re still expressing things in terms of preferences. “What if everyone stole?” Well, so what? That only has meaning for me if I prefer that people don’t steal. What if I prefer to kill? What if I prefer to be the guy to kill enough people to terrify the rest into going along with my system of morality? Sure, if everyone were like me, my strategy wouldn’t be successful. But so what? I have the “will to power” to make it happen. [/quote]
Until someone else takes it from you. Which is how a society based on the “control of power” operates. The strongest is only strong for a limited amount of time.
Power is an illusion. Some people fall for it. I don’t.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Kant had a nifty trick. The moral imperative. Behave as you would if your actions were to become universal.
So moralistic questions become: What would happen if everyone stole? What would happen if everyone murdered? What would happen if everyone enslaved?
This ethical tool even works for naturalists.
You’re still expressing things in terms of preferences. “What if everyone stole?” Well, so what? That only has meaning for me if I prefer that people don’t steal. What if I prefer to kill? What if I prefer to be the guy to kill enough people to terrify the rest into going along with my system of morality? Sure, if everyone were like me, my strategy wouldn’t be successful. But so what? I have the “will to power” to make it happen.
Until someone else takes it from you. Which is how a society based on the “control of power” operates. The strongest is only strong for a limited amount of time.
Power is an illusion. Some people fall for it. I don’t.[/quote]
Power is fleeting, but again, so what? Most people, if given the opportunity, will seek more of it. History is practically driven by power grabs of one type or another, and the guy in power dictates the going morality.
These naturalists are confused.
[quote]The real alternative to the leftist claptrap is a morality of reason. Such a morality begins with the individual’s life as the primary value and identifies the further values that are demonstrably required to sustain that life. It observes that man’s nature demands that we live not by random urges or by animal instincts, but by the faculty that distinguishes us from animals and on which our existence fundamentally depends: rationality.
…
There is indeed morality without religion–a morality, not of dogmatic commands, but of rational values and of unbreached respect for the life of the individual.[/quote]
Read:
Moral Values Without Religion: Does Morality Depend Upon Religion?
by Peter Schwartz
at:
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Power is fleeting, but again, so what? Most people, if given the opportunity, will seek more of it. History is practically driven by power grabs of one type or another, and the guy in power dictates the going morality. [/quote]
But once you recognize the truth of history then it becomes obvious that they were all wrong.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Power is fleeting, but again, so what? Most people, if given the opportunity, will seek more of it. History is practically driven by power grabs of one type or another, and the guy in power dictates the going morality.
But once you recognize the truth of history then it becomes obvious that they were all wrong.[/quote]
That opinion depends from person to person. Again, you prefer not to grab power believing it to be evil. Not everyone sees it that way.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Power is fleeting, but again, so what? Most people, if given the opportunity, will seek more of it. History is practically driven by power grabs of one type or another, and the guy in power dictates the going morality.
But once you recognize the truth of history then it becomes obvious that they were all wrong.
That opinion depends from person to person. Again, you prefer not to grab power believing it to be evil. Not everyone sees it that way. [/quote]
No, I understand that.
The question is: If power determines morality and power is fleeting then is morality irrelevant?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Kant had a nifty trick. The moral imperative. Behave as you would if your actions were to become universal.
So moralistic questions become: What would happen if everyone stole? What would happen if everyone murdered? What would happen if everyone enslaved?
This ethical tool even works for naturalists.
Does that mean that radical Muslims should indeed kill Christians, since they want everyone to kill Christians?
Even a rule like that with no absolute backing, falls apart.
[/quote]
That question doesn’t really make sense. If in your world view Christians = Bad and Killing Christians = Good, then it’s self-explanatory that killing all the Christians would = very good. The moral imperative doesn’t doesn’t determine what is good and bad for you, it can be attached to any code of ethics or morals (almost, I guess relativism would reject it). It’s still up to the individual to adopt or formulate what is good vs. bad.
The moral imperative sort of falls apart in that you can be as specific or non-specific about an instance as you want. Like saying killing is wrong versus murder is wrong. Living through the moral imperative, you get vastly different results.
The moral impartial does to a good job of illustrating an extreme view when it comes in contact with it though. It can even do a nice job of reminding us how extreme some of our own professed views are.
However, it seems to be ignoring the moral imperative (in part) that defines what we consider to be moderate and/or modern.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Kant had a nifty trick. The moral imperative. Behave as you would if your actions were to become universal.
So moralistic questions become: What would happen if everyone stole? What would happen if everyone murdered? What would happen if everyone enslaved?
This ethical tool even works for naturalists.
Does that mean that radical Muslims should indeed kill Christians, since they want everyone to kill Christians?
Even a rule like that with no absolute backing, falls apart.
The fundemental question about murder, in general, still remains – or even the opposite corollary: What if every Christian killed Muslims?
Or we could even apply ethical reciprocity to it: What if everyone treated everyone with the same respect they would want for themselves?
Most people behave in accordance with ethical reciprocity and the moral imperative without even realizing it just due to the nature of living in a world of “cause and effect.”
But I believe the question posed by the OP was answered. Moral education does not necessarily need to be grounded in religion. In fact, when it is we get questions like the one you posed to me.[/quote]
My post didnâ??t show up, so Iâ??m re-responding to this.
What you consider â??the fundamental questionâ?? is entirely individual and arbitrary.
Does motive factor in? What if it was self defense? What about the mental acuteness of the perp? What if the murdered willingly enters the event that causes his death? If I ask you to kill me, is it wrong to do so?
Iâ??m sure you include self defense as critical to your â??fundamental questionâ?? others may include the religious beliefs of the killed. Why is your view more â??fundamentalâ?? that anyone elseâ??s?
It is also not something thatâ??s isolated to religion. You could just as easily replace religion with race or nationality, or rival school, or eye color. People will always find some stupid reason to kill/mistreat others, religion or not.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Power is fleeting, but again, so what? Most people, if given the opportunity, will seek more of it. History is practically driven by power grabs of one type or another, and the guy in power dictates the going morality.
But once you recognize the truth of history then it becomes obvious that they were all wrong.
That opinion depends from person to person. Again, you prefer not to grab power believing it to be evil. Not everyone sees it that way.
No, I understand that.
The question is: If power determines morality and power is fleeting then is morality irrelevant?[/quote]
Without moral absolutes, I believe it is irrelevant.
I also don’t think you can prove the idea of “moral absolutes” from an atheistic naturalist perspective.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Kant had a nifty trick. The moral imperative. Behave as you would if your actions were to become universal.
So moralistic questions become: What would happen if everyone stole? What would happen if everyone murdered? What would happen if everyone enslaved?
This ethical tool even works for naturalists.
Does that mean that radical Muslims should indeed kill Christians, since they want everyone to kill Christians?
Even a rule like that with no absolute backing, falls apart.
The fundemental question about murder, in general, still remains – or even the opposite corollary: What if every Christian killed Muslims?
Or we could even apply ethical reciprocity to it: What if everyone treated everyone with the same respect they would want for themselves?
Most people behave in accordance with ethical reciprocity and the moral imperative without even realizing it just due to the nature of living in a world of “cause and effect.”
But I believe the question posed by the OP was answered. Moral education does not necessarily need to be grounded in religion. In fact, when it is we get questions like the one you posed to me.
My post didnâ??t show up, so Iâ??m re-responding to this.
What you consider â??the fundamental questionâ?? is entirely individual and arbitrary.
Does motive factor in? What if it was self defense? What about the mental acuteness of the perp? What if the murdered willingly enters the event that causes his death? If I ask you to kill me, is it wrong to do so?
Iâ??m sure you include self defense as critical to your â??fundamental questionâ?? others may include the religious beliefs of the killed. Why is your view more â??fundamentalâ?? that anyone elseâ??s?
It is also not something thatâ??s isolated to religion. You could just as easily replace religion with race or nationality, or rival school, or eye color. People will always find some stupid reason to kill/mistreat others, religion or not.
[/quote]
Ethics exists precisely because we want to answer questions about when certain behavior is just or when it is not.
Certain behavior must not be just under certain circumstances or else we have no reason to question it. The fact that we define murder different than just merely killing illustrates the fact that we recognize a distinction between acceptable and unacceptable behavior.
Killing someone may or may not be just depending on the circumstances. How do we know when or if those circumstances even exist?
I happen to think the nonaggression axiom offers a simple solution. It is the most consistent ethical framework there is. It works in all circumstances and holds up to all ethical tools we can throw at it.
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Kant had a nifty trick. The moral imperative. Behave as you would if your actions were to become universal.
So moralistic questions become: What would happen if everyone stole? What would happen if everyone murdered? What would happen if everyone enslaved?
This ethical tool even works for naturalists.
Does that mean that radical Muslims should indeed kill Christians, since they want everyone to kill Christians?
Even a rule like that with no absolute backing, falls apart.
That question doesn’t really make sense. If in your world view Christians = Bad and Killing Christians = Good, then it’s self-explanatory that killing all the Christians would = very good. The moral imperative doesn’t doesn’t determine what is good and bad for you, it can be attached to any code of ethics or morals (almost, I guess relativism would reject it). It’s still up to the individual to adopt or formulate what is good vs. bad.
The moral imperative sort of falls apart in that you can be as specific or non-specific about an instance as you want. Like saying killing is wrong versus murder is wrong. Living through the moral imperative, you get vastly different results.
The moral impartial does to a good job of illustrating an extreme view when it comes in contact with it though. It can even do a nice job of reminding us how extreme some of our own professed views are.
However, it seems to be ignoring the moral imperative (in part) that defines what we consider to be moderate and/or modern.[/quote]
I think you and I are on the same page. my point was that the moral imperative yields vastly different results and behavior that lifty would consider immoral.
the moral imperative has the same weakness religion does though. I don’t believe in the moral imperative.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The question is: If power determines morality and power is fleeting then is morality irrelevant?
Without moral absolutes, I believe it is irrelevant.
I also don’t think you can prove the idea of “moral absolutes” from an atheistic naturalist perspective. [/quote]
You cannot prove them even under a theistic framework.
We can however make consistent arguments for one framework or the other.
The nonaggression axiom is one that does hold up. Even a person who might have power and decides what is moral or not will defend against aggression. Why?
Because on a fundamental level we understand when we have been wronged even if some people would never admit to wronging someone by aggressive means. This is unprovable but it need not be proved. We recognize elements of truth in it.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The question is: If power determines morality and power is fleeting then is morality irrelevant?
Without moral absolutes, I believe it is irrelevant.
I also don’t think you can prove the idea of “moral absolutes” from an atheistic naturalist perspective.
You cannot prove them even under a theistic framework.
[/quote]
A theistic framework (well, a Christian one at least), states that God is good, goodness flows from his character, and he wills and mandates good. These mandates are found in both conscience and revelation but exist because the we were made in his image and thus have the former and his character and intervention have provided the latter.
The Christian theistic framework does provide a basis for moral absolutes.
I think Gordon Clark’s argument thoroughly refutes the humanists.
[quote]ds1973 wrote:
These naturalists are confused.
The real alternative to the leftist claptrap is a morality of reason. Such a morality begins with the individual’s life as the primary value and identifies the further values that are demonstrably required to sustain that life. It observes that man’s nature demands that we live not by random urges or by animal instincts, but by the faculty that distinguishes us from animals and on which our existence fundamentally depends: rationality.
…
There is indeed morality without religion–a morality, not of dogmatic commands, but of rational values and of unbreached respect for the life of the individual.
Read:
Moral Values Without Religion: Does Morality Depend Upon Religion?
by Peter Schwartz
at:
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4241
[/quote]
I don’t see how Schwartz’ argument escapes the dilemmas Clark elucidates:
How is reason possible without the laws of logic? How do the laws of logic exist without a God so ordering the universe that they do exist?
If “an individual’s life” is the value from which all others spring, how does it follow that I shouldn’t murder/steal to sustain it if necessary?
Life could also require me to steal what I need, couldn’t it? Why do I need to work when others can work and I can take from them?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Kant had a nifty trick. The moral imperative. Behave as you would if your actions were to become universal.
So moralistic questions become: What would happen if everyone stole? What would happen if everyone murdered? What would happen if everyone enslaved?
This ethical tool even works for naturalists.
Does that mean that radical Muslims should indeed kill Christians, since they want everyone to kill Christians?
Even a rule like that with no absolute backing, falls apart.
The fundemental question about murder, in general, still remains – or even the opposite corollary: What if every Christian killed Muslims?
Or we could even apply ethical reciprocity to it: What if everyone treated everyone with the same respect they would want for themselves?
Most people behave in accordance with ethical reciprocity and the moral imperative without even realizing it just due to the nature of living in a world of “cause and effect.”
But I believe the question posed by the OP was answered. Moral education does not necessarily need to be grounded in religion. In fact, when it is we get questions like the one you posed to me.
My post didn�¢??t show up, so I�¢??m re-responding to this.
What you consider �¢??the fundamental question�¢?? is entirely individual and arbitrary.
Does motive factor in? What if it was self defense? What about the mental acuteness of the perp? What if the murdered willingly enters the event that causes his death? If I ask you to kill me, is it wrong to do so?
I�¢??m sure you include self defense as critical to your �¢??fundamental question�¢?? others may include the religious beliefs of the killed. Why is your view more �¢??fundamental�¢?? that anyone else�¢??s?
It is also not something that�¢??s isolated to religion. You could just as easily replace religion with race or nationality, or rival school, or eye color. People will always find some stupid reason to kill/mistreat others, religion or not.
Ethics exists precisely because we want to answer questions about when certain behavior is just or when it is not.
Certain behavior must not be just under certain circumstances or else we have no reason to question it. The fact that we define murder different than just merely killing illustrates the fact that we recognize a distinction between acceptable and unacceptable behavior.
Killing someone may or may not be just depending on the circumstances. How do we know when or if those circumstances even exist?
I happen to think the nonaggression axiom offers a simple solution. It is the most consistent ethical framework there is. It works in all circumstances and holds up to all ethical tools we can throw at it.[/quote]
Ironically, nonaggression axioms exist in many (probably even most) major religions. Now you’re just disagreeing with how to go about arriving at the conclusion.