I enjoyed the On Government thread and so I thought we might discuss ethics. I’ll start this with Friedrich Jacobi’s accusation against Kantian philosophy: (Paraphrasing) If you don’t believe in an objective transcendent moral order then you are essentially a nihilist. Which leads to my question, why do you behave as if an objective transcendent moral order exists if you don’t believe one does?
Nihilist Student 1883 - Ilya Repin
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I enjoyed the On Government thread and so I thought we might discuss ethics. I’ll start this with Friedrich Jacobi’s accusation against Kantian philosophy: (Paraphrasing) If you don’t believe in an objective transcendent moral order then you are essentially a nihilist. Which leads to my question, why do you behave as if an objective transcendent moral order exists if you don’t believe one does?[/quote]
The Categorical Imperative is Nihilistic without a God? Then why am I not a Nihilist?
The Categorical Imperative= Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.
This is for the most part another way to put the Golden rule of do unto others, except it’s to be interpreted in two ways. On top of this, the Categorical Imperative has a flaw in that it relies on a persons nature, but the same can be said for the golden rule of do unto others. If you want to die, you should go kill people is a possible way to interpret the golden rule… So…
On one hand you aren’t supposed to entertain maxims that are foul, but if you yourself are foul like say a Murderer and a mad person you could get away with murder being an everyday thing so long as you can will it to be a rule for everyone. But, at the same time you are supposed to consider in your own mind, if you are allowed to do such a thing then you okay it for everyone in the world to act according to the way you act.
So in the case of compulsive liars or murderers if everyone acted the way they acted the world would be in chaos and death, much as it is today.
For Mormons and Christians such as Romney and others who have shit loads of children, they have to be okay with every swinging dick and vagina having 20 kids. Considering the lack of land and resources one could consider this suicidal. The Categorical Imperative requires a person to be a localized Cosmopolitan.
The other interesting aspect of Kant are his ranks of goodness and how they are linked to duty. Some people have duty to God as Kant did… Kant considers happiness a thing of happenstance or chance rather than something necessarily connected to doing good. I’ve given this example before, but if there are two people who donate time or money to a good cause, and one person does so out of duty, while the other person does so because it makes them feel happy, the person who does good deeds out of Duty is the one doing the greater good. The reason is, because if the person feeling happiness as a motivation stops feeling happiness then they will stop doing the good thing, while the person doing things out of duty will do them whether they make them feel happy or not.
A lot of Kants morality depends on the workings of the person. Kant’s works influence my ideas of right in a cosmopolitan way… I have no belief in God, nor do I feel a duty to God. Yet, I’m still considered a good person according to my actions and volition by most people. And by most people it isn’t limited to the typical views in the United States.
I’m not a Nihilist, but I’m an agnostic and I subscribe to Kantian views. Therefore, you are wrong. Why do I follow moral rules without a God? Because most humans have this thing called empathy. Empathy along with ideas of cosmopolitanism leads to superior morality. No need for God.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I enjoyed the On Government thread and so I thought we might discuss ethics. I’ll start this with Friedrich Jacobi’s accusation against Kantian philosophy: (Paraphrasing) If you don’t believe in an objective transcendent moral order then you are essentially a nihilist. Which leads to my question, why do you behave as if an objective transcendent moral order exists if you don’t believe one does?[/quote]
Where does this objective transcendent moral (order) reside? What does it mean? If it is seen as a description or distillation of an existing form of human behaviour then I can understand what it means. If it is thought to somehow exist independently of human behaviour, beyond time and space in some kind of Platonian world of ideas or as a universal force or something like that then I really can’t follow. I can’t see it existing in any other form than as a description of a form of behaviour that we as a social species value.
As a member of humankind I too value behaviour like that and I’ve been indoctrinated to value such behaviour.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/friedrich-jacobi/
He did a bit of equivocation in his critiques of Kant, he didn’t like the enlightenment… And he was afraid of multiculturalism and equivocated things like atheism or anything not guided by a personal God to nihilism. Great guy to use as an example SexMachine, how could I expect anything else from you.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/friedrich-jacobi/
He did a bit of equivocation in his critiques of Kant, he didn’t like the enlightenment… And he was afraid of multiculturalism and equivocated things like atheism or anything not guided by a personal God to nihilism. Great guy to use as an example SexMachine, how could I expect anything else from you. [/quote]
He didn’t like the enlightenment? He was a product of it. He merely challenged the idea of rationalism. Jacobi believed that any philosophical system based on rationality alone inevitably leads to atheism and fatalism. He presented moral philosophers with two choices: an amoral rational system or a irrational moral system. And what do you mean afraid of multiculturalism? Multiculturalism didn’t exist until the 1960’s.
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Where does this objective transcendent moral (order) reside?
[/quote]
Who knows? Jacobi said that universal morality cannot exist within an exclusively rational system and that a “leap of faith” is required.
[quote]
What does it mean? If it is seen as a description or distillation of an existing form of human behaviour then I can understand what it means. If it is thought to somehow exist independently of human behaviour, beyond time and space in some kind of Platonian world of ideas or as a universal force or something like that then I really can’t follow. I can’t see it existing in any other form than as a description of a form of behaviour that we as a social species value.
As a member of humankind I too value behaviour like that and I’ve been indoctrinated to value such behaviour.[/quote]
I’ll get back to some of these questions.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Where does this objective transcendent moral (order) reside?
[/quote]
Who knows? Jacobi said that universal morality cannot exist within an exclusively rational system and that a “leap of faith” is required.
[/quote]
Careful, folks don’t take kindly to this point 'round here, even when they agree with it.
Good idea for a thread.
I do believe in objective good and ill.
But I allow that I may err in this belief, in which case I still have an answer as to why I act like objective good and evil exist: Because I want to. And I want to because I evolved to to want to, because to desire the “good” things which I desire is to desire a state of affairs generally conducive to the propagation of my genes and the survival of my species.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/friedrich-jacobi/
He did a bit of equivocation in his critiques of Kant, he didn’t like the enlightenment… And he was afraid of multiculturalism and equivocated things like atheism or anything not guided by a personal God to nihilism. Great guy to use as an example SexMachine, how could I expect anything else from you. [/quote]
He didn’t like the enlightenment? He was a product of it. He merely challenged the idea of rationalism. Jacobi believed that any philosophical system based on rationality alone inevitably leads to atheism and fatalism. He presented moral philosophers with two choices: an amoral rational system or a irrational moral system. And what do you mean afraid of multiculturalism? Multiculturalism didn’t exist until the 1960’s.[/quote]
Yes, he was a part of the enlightenment… He was one of many who the elite minds pointed out was a religious thinker, detached from logic and reason. He was concerned specifically about cultural change during the enlightenment. Just another scared white boy who was wrong back then, just as you are wrong now.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Good idea for a thread.
I do believe in objective good and ill.
But I allow that I may err in this belief, in which case I still have an answer as to why I act like objective good and evil exist: Because I want to. And I want to because I evolved to to want to, because to desire the “good” things which I desire is to desire a state of affairs generally conducive to the propagation of my genes and the survival of my species.[/quote]
So a personal desire triggers an act of faith? So does this desire take the form of wanting to maximise your own pleasure and minimise your own suffering? Or is the desire to believe motivated by a desire to adhere to principles that are in accord with this objective morality?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Where does this objective transcendent moral (order) reside?
[/quote]
Who knows? Jacobi said that universal morality cannot exist within an exclusively rational system and that a “leap of faith” is required.
[quote]
Difficult to say anything about that. I can’t even fathom what an excusively rational system would be like.Â
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Difficult to say anything about that. I can’t even fathom what an excusively rational system would be like.Ã? [/quote]
By “faith” Jacobi really meant “intuition” - intuition meaning the ability to immediately recognise an essential truth. And that the subjective experience of these truths implies that they have an objective existence.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Difficult to say anything about that. I can’t even fathom what an excusively rational system would be like.Ã???Ã??Ã? [/quote]
By “faith” Jacobi really meant “intuition” - intuition meaning the ability to immediately recognise an essential truth. And that the subjective experience of these truths implies that they have an objective existence.[/quote]
I do grant intuition as much value as reason or intellect or whatever. So in that sense I understand the reasoning. I don’t know, for the time being I just accept that they point in different directions, or at least that appears to be the case. Actually it doesn’t even bother me, since the behavioural result is the same, just the scope of the (transcendent) moral order is different.
E: Actually, intuitive truth just is, I don’t try to connect it with reasoning. I leads to metaphysical constructions that I find unhelpful…
Is it always moraly wrong to lie? Is stealing? How about killing?
Seems to me that the moral absolutist, is only one funky situation away from being a situational ethicist.
Great discussion BTW, good thread.
Nihilism… oh dear.
They lack principals, beliefs and have no social attachments. The practice simply leads to destruction.
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Difficult to say anything about that. I can’t even fathom what an excusively rational system would be like.Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã? [/quote]
By “faith” Jacobi really meant “intuition” - intuition meaning the ability to immediately recognise an essential truth. And that the subjective experience of these truths implies that they have an objective existence.[/quote]
I do grant intuition as much value as reason or intellect or whatever. So in that sense I understand the reasoning. I don’t know, for the time being I just accept that they point in different directions, or at least that appears to be the case. Actually it doesn’t even bother me, since the behavioural result is the same, just the scope of the (transcendent) moral order is different.
E: Actually, intuitive truth just is, I don’t try to connect it with reasoning. I leads to metaphysical constructions that I find unhelpful…[/quote]
If intuition rather than reason is a guide for morality, then by what grounds can an intuited morality be judged other than by the person who came up with it, or God?
If morality is guided by logic and reason, then other people can come along and at least critique it and point out it’s flaws, alter it, improve it etc the same way I generally use Duty in the Kantian sense. I don’t have duty to God, but I have duty to myself and my own psychology. Since these ideas are rooted in reason someone can critique my beliefs on a grounds of reason itself, and in most cases of moral theory this is exactly what happens. Even versions of Virtue Theory which Aristotle coined are still around today, and probably the most functional for everyday people.
But, if morality is based purely on faith, and faith rooted in a leap of faith, then who or what is responsible? And on what grounds do you critique such a morality? You cant use reason because they intuit, you cant intuit yourself because it’s based on others intuition. Who are you to critique their ability to intuit what is right and wrong?
Want to talk about moral relativism? Here’s the scoop. On what moral grounds would we have to critique say Hitler for his atrocities? He intuited Jews were evil and needed to be exterminated. So, we intuit, rather than reason he is wrong?
It seems like you can justify any action using a leap of faith. What’s scary, is reason isn’t even a sort of backboard to catch such bad actions. There aren’t really any grounds morally greater than intuition and leaps of faith.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I enjoyed the On Government thread and so I thought we might discuss ethics. I’ll start this with Friedrich Jacobi’s accusation against Kantian philosophy: (Paraphrasing) If you don’t believe in an objective transcendent moral order then you are essentially a nihilist. Which leads to my question, why do you behave as if an objective transcendent moral order exists if you don’t believe one does?[/quote]
My inclination would be to say that most people who try to deny the existence of a “transcendent moral order” actually do believe in one, but they do not wish to call it by this name because they think word associations (“transcendent”) are somehow going to force them into admitting the existence of God. This is a mistake
The logic behind the categorical imperative still works without any notion of God. Someone who denies morals derived from the categorical imperative is probably not truly consistent because if such person feels it is okay for them to murder anyone, I doubt they feel OK with possibly being murdered at any time. The person that denies rules such as this is immoral and illogical
The categorical imperative is based on the same logic that is a necessary condition for society and as such is transcendent, and someone who denies this probably is a nihilist
[quote]Severiano wrote:
If intuition rather than reason is a guide for morality, then by what grounds can an intuited morality be judged other than by the person who came up with it, or God?[/quote]
By it’s fruits. In a sense it is pointless to argue about moral systems or their grounds, because in the end most of us know when an act is morally right. We all learn moral principles by very simple means in the playground and from the actions of our parents and other significant adults. Or rather, from the discrepancies between their words and actions.
Not that I would oppose your view any more than OPs. In practice the are no clear cut rational or intuitive bases for our morals or thinking in general. Like Jacobi or Kant we can lean one way or the other, but basically both ways are open to us.
When we get messed up because of too wierd stimuli as a child or because of our own actions as adults, religion do have a great power to straighten us up, though. But not against our will, so the seed and knowledge that we are doing wrong must still be there. I think there are good reasons to think the basics of morality are hardwired in our brains, or in some cases, it just isn’t there.
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
If intuition rather than reason is a guide for morality, then by what grounds can an intuited morality be judged other than by the person who came up with it, or God?[/quote]
By it’s fruits. In a sense it is pointless to argue about moral systems or their grounds, because in the end most of us know when an act is morally right. We all learn moral principles by very simple means in the playground and from the actions of our parents and other significant adults. Or rather, from the discrepancies between their words and actions.
Not that I would oppose your view any more than OPs. In practice the are no clear cut rational or intuitive bases for our morals or thinking in general. Like Jacobi or Kant we can lean one way or the other, but basically both ways are open to us.
When we get messed up because of too wierd stimuli as a child or because of our own actions as adults, religion do have a great power to straighten us up, though. But not against our will, so the seed and knowledge that we are doing wrong must still be there. I think there are good reasons to think the basics of morality are hardwired in our brains, or in some cases, it just isn’t there.
[/quote]
The idea that it’s hard wired in the brain is a purely rationalist explanation. Jacobi argued that good and evil exist extrinsic of man and that they can be perceived by man. And that subjective perception implies objective existence.
We don’t all create our own individual morality. We all perceive the same universal morality extrinsic to ourselves. Some distort it and some just breach it but we all know what it is.