Exactly. The whole basis of his philosophy, and that of deontology in general, in my opinion is bogus. Morality is individual - based on some combination of empathy, consequentialism, and whatever rules of behavior that person believes in. Morality has no absolutes.Felix wrote:Yes indeed, that was Kant's mistake, he attempted to make incorporeal reason the supreme arbiter of Goodness. He did not succeed because his argument is logically inconsistent or just too fuzzy.Fooloso4: I take it that your point is that it is not self-evidently true that moral truths are a priori.
A question for deontologists about the purpose of morality
-
- Posts: 1500
- Joined: December 22nd, 2013, 4:57 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eric Hoffer
- Location: California, US
Re: A question for deontologists about the purpose of morali
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: A question for deontologists about the purpose of morali
It makes rational sense to follow with with our beliefs "as if" they are natural laws until they faulter. That is what I got from his words. Some of our beliefs in what is "right" are clearer than others. What we attmept to do is move towards clarity not dogmatism. I have looked for where he says this, but I may have simply made some assumptions in his words?
- Lark_Truth
- Posts: 212
- Joined: December 24th, 2016, 11:51 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Brandon Sanderson
Re: A question for deontologists about the purpose of morali
A very astute question. How about another: Why did medieval knights wear heavy plate armor? Answer: For protection. Though the difference between heavy plate armor and morality is that morality isn't as restricting. Virtue and Honor, rather than placing someone in limiting behavioral standards, allow people the most freedom and happiness possible.Andrian wrote: why do we have morality in the first place, and what is it for?
Here's a short parable: There are two eagles who are told by their mother to not do deals with the man who lives nearby. One day, the man tells the two eagles that if they give him the feathers of their wings and live in a cage for him, he will feed them for the rest of their lives. One eagle agrees and submits to having his wings plucked of their magnificent feathers and is placed in a cage where the man feeds him skinny, dirty rats - the only thing that the man can catch - for the rest of his life. The man who now owns the eagle never cleans out his cage, which starts to stink from feces and the rotting remains of rats. Meanwhile, the other eagle refuses the deal, and he is able to fly through the sky whenever he wants, eating fat rabbits and tasty snakes. He still has his feathers, is not trapped in a stinky cage, and eats tasty food that he can catch on his own instead of depending upon someone else for his food.
Obviously the eagle that can fly is happier than the eagle in the cage. He listened to his mother (a must in life, a good mother is a magnificent teacher), he didn't give in to temptation, and thus he kept his freedom.
The opposite of morality is carnality, base actions. It is extremely addicting, and though it seems to make people happy, it turns them into slaves toward their own desires. Being a slave is not fun, and there can be little happiness found in such a life.
This is what morality is for, to allow us to fly and be happy in the sky where everything is beautiful.
- Mark1955
- Posts: 739
- Joined: July 21st, 2015, 4:02 am
- Favorite Philosopher: David Hume
- Location: Nottingham, England.
Re: A question for deontologists about the purpose of morali
It amazes me that anyone who claims to be a philosopher, and is accepted as such by many people, could come up with this. Anyone like to offer me a 'universal law without contradiction'.Andrian wrote: you should "act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction." In other words, you should only do something if you could make it a law that everyone act as you do without running into a contradiction.
- Felix
- Posts: 3117
- Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am
Re: A question for deontologists about the purpose of morali
For Kant, this was just another term for "self-evident truth." But to him, the "good will" was apparently also a self-evident truth. If one starts with the premise that a good will can unequivocally know what is good, the categorical imperative will follow from that conclusion.
-
- Posts: 1500
- Joined: December 22nd, 2013, 4:57 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eric Hoffer
- Location: California, US
Re: A question for deontologists about the purpose of morali
Agree completely. There's no such animal. You may have heard about the famous incident where someone asked Kant if it was moral to lie to a killer about the presence of a victim in his house, and after contemplation - in order to be consistent with his philosophy - Kant said that it was not morally acceptable to lie, even in that case. And then he came up with some gobbledegook to the effect that you can't be certain that the killer will follow through and other similar nonsense. Weird and inconsistent with what most of us believe in our hearts.Mark1955 wrote:It amazes me that anyone who claims to be a philosopher, and is accepted as such by many people, could come up with this. Anyone like to offer me a 'universal law without contradiction'.Andrian wrote: you should "act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction." In other words, you should only do something if you could make it a law that everyone act as you do without running into a contradiction.
I suspect that Kant was not blessed with a lot of empathy - which is the basis for what I personally consider morality to be - yet still wanted desperately to be a good person. So he was looking for a set of inflexible rules to follow that would guarantee that he could, by following them, be decent and moral. No such hard and fast rules exist that are anything like what most normal people accept as distinguishing between right and wrong. Of course there was also the strong motivation to craft a new moral system that would bring him fame and fortune.
- Felix
- Posts: 3117
- Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am
Re: A question for deontologists about the purpose of morali
Kant asserted that the only thing really good is the good will (for only it can know goodness). If the good will requires empathy (and I agree with you that it does), than perhaps Kant had realized that it was necessary even though he himself was deficient in it.Wilson: I suspect that Kant was not blessed with a lot of empathy - which is the basis for what I personally consider morality to be - yet still wanted desperately to be a good person.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023