Announcement: Your votes are in! The January 2019 Philosophy Book of the Month is The Runaway Species: How Human Creativity Remakes the World by David Eagleman and Anthony Brandt.

The Golden Rule, revised

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: The Golden Rule, revised

Post by Spectrum » July 6th, 2012, 10:07 am

chazwyman wrote:
Spectrum wrote:If I were to reconcile Kant's 'duty' in Gandhi's Hinduism, it would be equivalent to its 'Dharma', the spontaneous act in alignment with the best that is to done in the circumstances. Note the Gita's 'Be without the three gunas' and 'do not be attached to the fruits of action while in action'.
Can you begin to support this assertion about Kant's deontology?

Kant "duty" is based on a good will,i.e. a will that is not corrupted by 'selfish' motives. The Hindu principles I mentioned are based on the same basis of good will. This is just a very simplistic presentation.
chazwyman wrote:You mean Categorical Imperative.

Yes, 'was an oversight'.
A side point, the law can enforce. What is to be enforced must be start from the ideal and optimized to the current conditions.

chazwyman wrote:It seems to me that Optimising, is exactly what Kant rejects. Such utilitarianism is what Kant means to jettison. Kant exhorts us to do that which we would find acceptable to us and to others in general. This, despite optimal conditions, protects minority positions.

Optimizing is applicable to any situation and that would include Kant's expections. e.g.

1. Kant expectations are X
2. The individual or group is withiin circumstance Y.
Optimizing means adjusting Y to meet to as near possible to Kant's X within available resources and contraints.

Here is a clue to Kant's optimizing, (happened to read his CPR).
This is from pg 486 of Norman K Smith's book; re THE IDEAL IN GENERAL.
Kant wrote:As the idea gives the rule, so the ideal in such a case serves as the archetype for the complete determination of the copy; and we have no other standard for our actions than the conduct of this divine man within us, with which we compare and judge ourselves, and so reform ourselves, although we can never attain to the perfection thereby pre- scribed.

Kant's principle is the same for his morals, i.e. reforming ourselves (optimizing) the best we can towards the ideal while knowing the ideal is never attainable.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

hilda

Re: The Golden Rule, revised

Post by hilda » July 6th, 2012, 10:41 am

There is no such thing as people so all the generalisations launched by all philosophies and politics against their enemies fail.

User avatar
chazwyman
Posts: 332
Joined: September 30th, 2011, 5:25 am

Re: The Golden Rule, revised

Post by chazwyman » July 6th, 2012, 10:52 am

Spectrum wrote:
chazwyman wrote: Can you begin to support this assertion about Kant's deontology?

Kant "duty" is based on a good will,i.e. a will that is not corrupted by 'selfish' motives. The Hindu principles I mentioned are based on the same basis of good will. This is just a very simplistic presentation.
chazwyman wrote:You mean Categorical Imperative.

Yes, 'was an oversight'.
A side point, the law can enforce. What is to be enforced must be start from the ideal and optimized to the current conditions.

chazwyman wrote:It seems to me that Optimising, is exactly what Kant rejects. Such utilitarianism is what Kant means to jettison. Kant exhorts us to do that which we would find acceptable to us and to others in general. This, despite optimal conditions, protects minority positions.
...
Kant's principle is the same for his morals, i.e. reforming ourselves (optimizing) the best we can towards the ideal while knowing the ideal is never attainable.
I was referring not to self reforming but in choosing the right course by following the CI. Using the CI for self reforming to achieve an "optimal" position assumes that the CI could always lead to an optimal position, when clearly it cannot. For sure following the CI can optimise in terms of the CI, but that merely begs the question whether or not the CI is a better course of action than a more utilitarian stance. But the difficulty expressed by many when reflecting upon Kant's approach to ethics is that the CI suggests course of action which are far from optimal. The often quoted example is his position on always telling the truth, even in circumstances where lying could save people's lives.

Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: The Golden Rule, revised

Post by Spectrum » July 6th, 2012, 11:36 am

chazwyman wrote:I was referring not to self reforming but in choosing the right course by following the CI. Using the CI for self reforming to achieve an "optimal" position assumes that the CI could always lead to an optimal position, when clearly it cannot. For sure following the CI can optimise in terms of the CI, but that merely begs the question whether or not the CI is a better course of action than a more utilitarian stance. But the difficulty expressed by many when reflecting upon Kant's approach to ethics is that the CI suggests course of action which are far from optimal. The often quoted example is his position on always telling the truth, even in circumstances where lying could save people's lives.

In Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, he showed that there is no independent perfect object, i.e. the noumemon or thing-in-itself. However in the Critique of Practical Reason, Kant took the opposite view and enable moral to be perfect and ideal, i.e. the categorical imperative. He stated the CI manifest from "duty" i.e. based on a good will uncorrupted by selfish motives. I agree with Kant as far as this goes.

I believe the CI is a guiding principle and not expected to be a set of rules to be carved in stone tablets. I think Kant was apparently stuck and cannot go further after proposing the concept of "duty" for his CI.

When Kant suggested that lying is absolute immoral with reference to the CI, I think he had strayed off course from the fundamentals of own theory of morals.
Kant would have needed to work harder on to put the CI into action, but giving an example of absolutely no lying is not a good example. I believe there are situations where white lies are necessary to optimize a contraint circumstances.
For example, almost everyone would accept cannabalism is absolutely not acceptable in the modern world in any circumstances. Should 'no-canibalism' be a part of the CI set? As a counter to no-canibalism as an absolute/ideal, note the 16 plane crash survivors who survived for >2 months after being stranded in the middle of somewhere atop the Andes by eating their friends and relatives who had died. This is optimality in action.

However, I have no problem extending Kant's CI using various principles from Eastern Philosophies which were established more than 2500 years ago.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

User avatar
chazwyman
Posts: 332
Joined: September 30th, 2011, 5:25 am

Re: The Golden Rule, revised

Post by chazwyman » July 6th, 2012, 1:01 pm

Spectrum wrote:
chazwyman wrote:I was referring not to self reforming but in choosing the right course by following the CI. Using the CI for self reforming to achieve an "optimal" position assumes that the CI could always lead to an optimal position, when clearly it cannot. For sure following the CI can optimise in terms of the CI, but that merely begs the question whether or not the CI is a better course of action than a more utilitarian stance. But the difficulty expressed by many when reflecting upon Kant's approach to ethics is that the CI suggests course of action which are far from optimal. The often quoted example is his position on always telling the truth, even in circumstances where lying could save people's lives.

In Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, he showed that there is no independent perfect object, i.e. the noumemon or thing-in-itself. However in the Critique of Practical Reason, Kant took the opposite view and enable moral to be perfect and ideal, i.e. the categorical imperative. He stated the CI manifest from "duty" i.e. based on a good will uncorrupted by selfish motives. I agree with Kant as far as this goes.
How is his epistemological position relevant to his ethical position?
Spectrum wrote: I believe the CI is a guiding principle and not expected to be a set of rules to be carved in stone tablets. I think Kant was apparently stuck and cannot go further after proposing the concept of "duty" for his CI.

When Kant suggested that lying is absolute immoral with reference to the CI, I think he had strayed off course from the fundamentals of own theory of morals.
Kant would have needed to work harder on to put the CI into action, but giving an example of absolutely no lying is not a good example. I believe there are situations where white lies are necessary to optimize a contraint circumstances.
For example, almost everyone would accept cannabalism is absolutely not acceptable in the modern world in any circumstances. Should 'no-canibalism' be a part of the CI set? As a counter to no-canibalism as an absolute/ideal, note the 16 plane crash survivors who survived for >2 months after being stranded in the middle of somewhere atop the Andes by eating their friends and relatives who had died. This is optimality in action.
You are moving the goal posts. On the one hand you are first talking about what Kant said, now you are just expressing an opinion. You are arguing a case laid down by Bentham and Mill, on your reflection on cannibalism, not Kant. [/quote]

Windy34
Posts: 278
Joined: July 13th, 2011, 4:20 pm

Re: The Golden Rule, revised

Post by Windy34 » July 6th, 2012, 1:09 pm

GertC wrote:Hello everyone! I was looking for a place where I could get some feedback on this thing I wrote, hope I'm posting it in the right place. Enjoy!


“The Golden Rule”: One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.

This concept describes a "reciprocal" or "two-way" relationship between one's self and others that involves both sides equally and in a mutual fashion. This concept can be explained from the perspective of psychology, philosophy, sociology, religion, etc.: Psychologically it involves a person empathizing with others. Philosophically it involves a person perceiving their neighbor as also "an I" or "self." Sociologically, this principle is applicable between individuals, between groups, and between individuals and groups. (For example, a person living by this rule treats all people with consideration, not just members of his or her in-group.) Religion is an integral part of the history of this concept. (source: Wikipedia)


This rule has since long been considered a standard of moral behavior, and is shared by every religion in some way. I myself have made use of this rule for most of my life. However, today I will share my first attempt at defining a higher standard, an ethical code that can stand the test of time as humanity keeps evolving.

Why do I think the Golden Rule is flawed?

The Golden Rule implies that the correct moral decision on how to treat another can always be found within one’s self. Basically, to comply with the rule you should follow these steps:

1.) Empathize, try to put yourself in the other person’s shoes
2.) Ask yourself: How would I like others to treat me, now that I’m in this situation?
3.) Treat the other person in the way of 2.
4.) Success! You are now treating the other person in a moral way!

First problem: Not everyone is equally capable of putting themselves in other person’s shoes, think of people with autism for example. Does this make them less capable of making moral decisions? A better rule would be one that’s applicable even for people who lack the ability to empathize.

Second problem: Tastes differ, see the example of the sadist described as a masochist following the golden rule. So barring perfect empathy, you are neglecting certain traits of the other person and replacing them with your own. This problem led to The Platinum Rule, treating others as they would like to be treated, by for example asking them. Better, but not quite there. Which brings me to:

Third problem: The way someone would like to be treated is not necessarily a way that’s good for them. I think giving someone what they want (treating others as they would like to be treated) is morally inferior to giving someone what they need (treating others in a way that’s best for them). Think of parents and their children! We could call this The Diamond Rule: One should treat others in the way that’s best for them. The problem here is that it’s very difficult for someone to know what’s best for them, let alone what’s best for someone else.

Now, my definition of what’s ‘best’ for someone is different than the generally accepted idea. I believe what’s fundamentally good for you, is also good for everyone else and vice versa. Put differently: If something is bad for someone, it’s also bad for you. We are all connected, by the planet we inhabit, by the cells we have in common, by every aspect of our lives. John Nash said something along the lines of: “The best result will come where everyone in the group does what is best for himself ... and the group”. I believe doing what’s best for the group is always the same as doing what’s best for yourself. Seperating yourself from the group, by for instance gaining wealth or power (something many would say is a good thing), is not fundamentally good for you. The closer you are to the group, the better for you… and the group. We as a people will be at our absolute best, strongest and happiest when we are all together, as one.

So taking my own views on the subject into account, the most moral way to treat someone else is to do so in a way that’s fundamentally good for everyone. This isn’t easy, and seems impossible to pull off by yourself. If you’re trying to find out what’s good for everyone, you will need to be in touch with everyone. In this time and age that seems impossible. So what do we do?

My answer is two-fold: Research and math. When presented with a problem (such as: How do I treat someone?), do the research. Ask others, read, go online, recall and rethink past decisions, do as much until you have a clear winner, a course of action that is most likely to result in success… success being a solution that’s best for everyone, which also happens to be the best for you! If you use research and math, you cannot fail. Even if the consequences of your decision are completely disastrous, it was still the right decision at the time. You can learn from the consequences, but cannot change the past. You took your time, and took the decision that was most likely to have a good outcome for everyone. That, in my opinion, is truly moral behavior.

Of course this solution can be different each time, even if the question remains the same! If you tried something last time and it didn’t work, it should factor into the equation for the next time. It’s crucial to remain flexible at all times, and when a better solution presents itself, the only moral thing to do is to embrace that solution. If something doesn’t work, find something that does. If something works, stick with it, until you find something that works better.

All of this results in my attempt at a new rule for moral behavior, which is not exactly a replacement for the one I started with (that specified interaction with others), but rather a broad view on moral decision-making: For every problem, try to find the solution that’s most likely to benefit everyone. If later a better solution presents itself, adapt.

If we apply this to the Golden Rule, we get:

One should continuously look for the way to treat others that’s most likely to benefit everyone.

This rule makes sense idealistically, but we don't live in an idealistic world. What if you treat others how you want to be treated, but then others don't do the same thing back then you have done all the work without getting anything back. I know from an idealistic point of view I shouldn't expect anything back or else that is selfish, and ungeniune. But I want people to be geniune back, but then again I don't know how to avoid being selfish.So how to solve this problem I don't know or understand. I also don't know how other people can avoid being selfish, and don't know if they want to try at this, or if they can do something they naturally are not. If I do something I am not naturally I wear a mask. But wearing a mask is not completely geniune. Others wear masks as well, and that is not completely geniune. Should a person be completely who they are or should a person wear a mask and be ethical. Both decisions are bad, and I don't know which decision is worse.

Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: The Golden Rule, revised

Post by Spectrum » July 6th, 2012, 10:41 pm

chazwyman wrote:
Spectrum wrote:
In Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, he showed that there is no independent perfect object, i.e. the noumenon or thing-in-itself. However in the Critique of Practical Reason, Kant took the opposite view and enable moral to be perfect and ideal, i.e. the categorical imperative. He stated the CI manifest from "duty" i.e. based on a good will uncorrupted by selfish motives. I agree with Kant as far as this goes.

How is his epistemological position relevant to his ethical position?
As I had stated, he used the main principle of knowledge in his CPR in reverse it for his moral. His theme was reason cannot override experience in terms of knowledge, while experience cannot override reason in terms of morals. One cannot rely on experience to decide the ultimate moral condition, i.e. the CI. The question is how to bring the CI, the highest ideal via reason to reconcile with the practical into experience.
You are moving the goal posts. On the one hand you are first talking about what Kant said, now you are just expressing an opinion. You are arguing a case laid down by Bentham and Mill, on your reflection on cannibalism, not Kant.
This is a discussion re the Golden Rule, it is not specifically on Kant's CI. As such I stated what Kant proposed and give my opinions on his theory which I think has a very good foundation for morality but it is limited, re one example, cannibalism.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

User avatar
chazwyman
Posts: 332
Joined: September 30th, 2011, 5:25 am

Re: The Golden Rule, revised

Post by chazwyman » July 7th, 2012, 12:23 pm

Spectrum wrote:
chazwyman wrote:
How is his epistemological position relevant to his ethical position?
As I had stated, he used the main principle of knowledge in his CPR in reverse it for his moral.
That is quite a claim. Can you substantiate it from his texts?
Spectrum wrote: His theme was reason cannot override experience in terms of knowledge, while experience cannot override reason in terms of morals. One cannot rely on experience to decide the ultimate moral condition, i.e. the CI. The question is how to bring the CI, the highest ideal via reason to reconcile with the practical into experience.
But how can you account fir the CI being completely arbitrary?
Spectrum wrote:
You are moving the goal posts. On the one hand you are first talking about what Kant said, now you are just expressing an opinion. You are arguing a case laid down by Bentham and Mill, on your reflection on cannibalism, not Kant.
This is a discussion re the Golden Rule, it is not specifically on Kant's CI. As such I stated what Kant proposed and give my opinions on his theory which I think has a very good foundation for morality but it is limited, re one example, cannibalism.
IN other words, what I said seems to be correct you are confusing Kant and utilitarianism.

Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: The Golden Rule, revised

Post by Spectrum » July 7th, 2012, 11:16 pm

chazwyman wrote:
Spectrum wrote:

As I had stated, he used the main principle of knowledge in his CPR in reverse it for his moral.


That is quite a claim. Can you substantiate it from his texts?


Note I quoted this very relevant text earlier from Kant's CPR.
Kant wrote:As the idea gives the rule, so the ideal in such a case serves as the archetype for the complete determination of the copy; and we have no other standard for our actions than the conduct of this divine man within us, with which we compare and judge ourselves, and so reform ourselves, although we can never attain to the perfection thereby prescribed.



Kant first critique was the Critique of Pure Reason, demonstrating from direct experience to the limit of pure reason. He used the principles therein to extend them in different direction for his 2 later critiques, i.e. 'Practical Reasons' and 'Judgments'.
With reference on the principles/knowledge of the CPR, Kant presented his theory on Moral.

In that quote 'the divine man' is the highest ideal-man humans can defined by pure reason.
It is the same principle he used in for his morality.
For morality, humanity should rely on pure reason to establish the highest ideal, the CI.
Note the basis is pure reason not utility (thus the not utilitarianism).

One can interpret Kant above quote from CPR through to his moral as;

"and we have no other standard for our actions than the conduct of this divine man within us (the Categorical Imperative -CI), with which we compare and judge ourselves, and so reform ourselves, although we can never attain to the perfection thereby prescribed (the CI)."

I have not quoted the detail texts herewith as it is too tedious, however I am confident, I got the main points rights. My current (now) project is re-reading the CPR (after spending months on this previously), the Critique of Practical Reason, Metaphysics of Moral and Critique of Judgment.
Spectrum wrote:
His theme was reason cannot override experience in terms of knowledge, while experience cannot override reason in terms of morals. One cannot rely on experience to decide the ultimate moral condition, i.e. the CI. The question is how to bring the CI, the highest ideal via reason to reconcile with the practical into experience.

But how can you account for the CI being completely arbitrary?


I am not sure what you mean here. You mean not completely arbitrary as being Absolute?
Kant did not imply that there are absolute moral laws as if established by some God that is awaiting discovery by humans.
What Kant implied of his CI is human can reason (based on pure reason) just a human can reason out a perfect god.
While a purely reasoned God is an impossibility on empirical grounds, the CI is possible perfect moral from pure reasoning.
I gave an analogy like the Perfect Market of economics which is also based on pure reasoning, i.e. theoretical but it can only be used as a guide and not expected to achievable.
IN other words, what I said seems to be correct you are confusing Kant and utilitarianism.


I know what is utilitarianism which is based on experience (e.g. greatest happiness). Kant is different and relied on pure reason for the perfect ideal moral code to be prescribed but not expected to be attainable. (note this principle from the CPR quote above).

Btw, my above points are my contribution to the discussion of this thread and as a refresher for my project. I am not in the business of winning games by guarding between any goal posts.

-- Updated Sun Jul 08, 2012 1:10 am to add the following --

Some paras prior to the above Kant's, Critique of Pure Reason, quote;
Kant wrote:Without soaring so high, we are yet bound to confess that human reason contains not only ideas, but ideals also, which although they do not have, like the Platonic ideas, creative power, yet have practical power (as regulative principles), and form the basis of the possible perfection of certain actions.

Moral concepts, as resting on something empirical (pleasure or displeasure), are not completely pure concepts of reason. Nonetheless, in respect of the principle whereby reason sets bounds to a freedom which is in itself without law, these concepts (when we attend merely to their form) may well serve as examples of pure concepts of reason.

Virtue, and therewith human wisdom in its complete purity, are ideas. The wise man (of the Stoics) is, however, an ideal, that is, a man existing in thought only, but in complete conformity with the idea of wisdom.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

User avatar
chazwyman
Posts: 332
Joined: September 30th, 2011, 5:25 am

Re: The Golden Rule, revised

Post by chazwyman » July 8th, 2012, 12:43 pm

Okay this is getting complicated with all these nested posts. SO I write it out manually.

First there man be a slight problem as the abbr for the Critique of Practical Reason might be confused with the Critique of Pure Reason could both be CPR. In the light of this I wonder if you might be more clear.

Secondly, you said that "In Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, he showed that there is no independent perfect object".

This is not the case. Kant demanded that there is in fact such a thing as the noumenon. But that such a thing was not available to us. This is not just nit picking as many people who have studied Kant, especially scientists think that the objective study of science is a means of pushing back the boundaries of the Subject to penetrate the Noumenon with a fuller understanding of the Phenomena; that which was once obscure by this boundary is revealed as we understand more fully the natural world. The Noumenon shrinks as the Phenomena are revealed.

Third, You assert that he specifically claims that he uses his epistemology in reverse and substantiate it with the following quote from CPR (without ref,);"As the idea give the rule… … Perfection thereby prescribed" Your response if problematic for two reasons. The quote does not seem to support my specific question and I cannot recognise the quote so cannot look back for context. Why would he simply reverse his findings, as if they were of no importance.

But on this point, in what manner does Kant assume we come 'perfectly prescribed', and do you think it is valid or meaningful?

Four,

There are so other problems further, in which it is not clear if you are evaluating Kant or asserting from his position e.g. For morality, humanity should rely on pure reason to establish the highest ideal, the CI. Note the basis is pure reason not utility (thus the not utilitarianism).

Reason leads as much to utilitarianism as it does to the CI. Just ask Mill :)
Spectrum wrote:
But how can you account for the CI being completely arbitrary?


I am not sure what you mean here. You mean not completely arbitrary as being Absolute?
Kant did not imply that there are absolute moral laws as if established by some God that is awaiting discovery by humans.
What Kant implied of his CI is human can reason (based on pure reason) just a human can reason out a perfect god.
While a purely reasoned God is an impossibility on empirical grounds, the CI is possible perfect moral from pure reasoning.
I gave an analogy like the Perfect Market of economics which is also based on pure reasoning, i.e. theoretical but it can only be used as a guide and not expected to achievable.
Okay - now it comes together. I'm not asking here what Kant claims. I'm asking you.
Kant's position seems to be - I've got a good reason why we should all behave under the CI rule, and because I said it the reasoning is pure. For Mill and Bentham, their advice for follow Utilitarianism seems to be more honest. They are making a plea that this is a good idea; that it ought to be the case because it works. And this is exactly why I think Kant is a megalomaniac. The CI, he claims is divinely inspired and brought to us, though my perfect reason, and this is why it is the right way to live. Kant is claiming that perfect morality IS; Mill is suggesting an ought, he is thus rejecting one of Hume's greatest warnings.

Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: The Golden Rule, revised

Post by Spectrum » July 9th, 2012, 1:46 am

chazwyman wrote:Okay this is getting complicated with all these nested posts. SO I write it out manually.
First there man be a slight problem as the abbr for the Critique of Practical Reason might be confused with the Critique of Pure Reason could both be CPR. In the light of this I wonder if you might be more clear.

Noted. The Critique of Practical Reason is often abbr as CPrR.
Secondly, you said that "In Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, he showed that there is no independent perfect object".
This is not the case. Kant demanded that there is in fact such a thing as the noumenon. But that such a thing was not available to us. This is not just nit picking as many people who have studied Kant, especially scientists think that the objective study of science is a means of pushing back the boundaries of the Subject to penetrate the Noumenon with a fuller understanding of the Phenomena; that which was once obscure by this boundary is revealed as we understand more fully the natural world. The Noumenon shrinks as the Phenomena are revealed.

This is controversial topic between the realist and the anti-realist views.
I am with the anti-realist view, i.e. the noumenon is only an ideal thing reasoned out by pure reason (without sensibility), it cannot be known ever and can only be used in the negative sense.
Kant wrote:The concept of a noumenon is thus a merely limiting concept, the function of which is to curb the pretensions of sensibility; and it is therefore only of negative employment.
At the same time it is no arbitrary invention; it is bound up with the limitation of sensibility, though it cannot affirm anything positive beyond the field of sensibility.
Norman K Smith (NKS) - pg 272


Btw, I do not want to discuss the details of the noumenon here.
Third, You assert that he specifically claims that he uses his epistemology in reverse and substantiate it with the following quote from CPR (without ref,);"As the idea give the rule… … Perfection thereby prescribed" Your response if problematic for two reasons. The quote does not seem to support my specific question and I cannot recognise the quote so cannot look back for context. Why would he simply reverse his findings, as if they were of no importance.
But on this point, in what manner does Kant assume we come 'perfectly prescribed', and do you think it is valid or meaningful?

I mentioned the related NKS page earlier. It is relevant to your question, your radar is not within the range to detect it.
In the CPR, Kant showed there is no perfect unconditioned empirical thing, i.e. the thing-in-itself or noumenon.
However it is possible to generate a perfect thing using pure reason, i.e. the thing-in-itself or noumenon, that is stripped of all elements of experience, sensibility and leaving only the form, logical, etc. This is where Kant explained how one can manifest God in thoughts using pure reason (not sensible-based reasoning) but a perfect God cannot exists empirically.

Kant reversed the CPR and apply the principles of the noumenon to his morality. What he proposed was to keep out the empirical and experience elements of the CPR and rely solely on pure-reason to reason out the perfect ideal moral in CPrR. The ideal perfect moral, i.e. CI should be based on logical principles.
What he implied was, we cannot find the perfect uncondition 'apple', the apple-in-itself via experience and in the empirical world, but we can reason out the perfect and ideal moral standards using pure-reason without relying on experience, i.e. the Perfection thereby Prescribed'.
Nevertheless whatever is ideal need to conform to the laws of logic and should not be something of "arbitrary invention".

Once we have these logical perfect moral standards that are not expected to be attainable, the next question is how to reconcile them with the practical.

Note the example on the Perfect Market of Economics which economists are in a way using pure-reason to reason out and lay down its principles. The Perfect Market is just a guide and not expected to be attainable.

Four,
There are so other problems further, in which it is not clear if you are evaluating Kant or asserting from his position e.g. For morality, humanity should rely on pure reason to establish the highest ideal, the CI. Note the basis is pure reason not utility (thus the not utilitarianism).
Reason leads as much to utilitarianism as it does to the CI. Just ask Mill :)

There is a very big difference between reason and pure-reason. There is reason that is grounded on the sensible and experience (a posteriori) on one end, and reason that is not grounded on anything sensisble (a priori ) in the other extreme.
As I had mentioned pure-reason is totally divorced from grounded sensible utilities.
One example of pure-reason is 2 + 3 = 5 which is true and there is no need for experience to support it.
The CI should therefore in the same mode as '2 + 3 = 5' i.e. pure logic which do not need sensibility or utility to support it.
Okay - now it comes together. I'm not asking here what Kant claims. I'm asking you.
Kant's position seems to be - I've got a good reason why we should all behave under the CI rule, and because I said it the reasoning is pure.
For Mill and Bentham, their advice for follow Utilitarianism seems to be more honest. They are making a plea that this is a good idea; that it ought to be the case because it works. And this is exactly why I think Kant is a megalomaniac.
The CI, he claims is divinely inspired and brought to us, though my perfect reason, and this is why it is the right way to live. Kant is claiming that perfect morality IS; Mill is suggesting an ought, he is thus rejecting one of Hume's greatest warnings.

Nah, Kant did not claim the CI is divinely inspired.
What he implied was, for morality, it is more effectively to work from a top (perfect) down (the practical) approach then from a bottom up approaches.
In this case one is aware of the reasonable perfect limit which one is working on.
As I had stated, for Kant, the CI is not expected to be carved in stone tablet like the Ten Commandments, but it is a flexible perfect logical form which can be changed with varying conditions and circumstances.

The CI based on pure-reason is just like any typical planning.
One establish the ideal theoretical plan based on the current known and speculated Strengths, Weakness, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT).
The Plan (CI) stipulates the 'oughts'.

On the practical side;
Then one work the plan and adjust accordingly.
However the plan should be flexible, if conditions of the assumptions and SWOT has significant unanticipated changes, then one has to change the original plan and continue to work on it towards the stated objectives.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

User avatar
chazwyman
Posts: 332
Joined: September 30th, 2011, 5:25 am

Re: The Golden Rule, revised

Post by chazwyman » July 9th, 2012, 12:58 pm

Spectrum wrote:
Noted. The Critique of Practical Reason is often abbr as CPrR.



This is controversial topic between the realist and the anti-realist views.
I am with the anti-realist view, i.e. the noumenon is only an ideal thing reasoned out by pure reason (without sensibility), it cannot be known ever and can only be used in the negative sense.




Btw, I do not want to discuss the details of the noumenon here.



I mentioned the related NKS page earlier. It is relevant to your question, your radar is not within the range to detect it.
In the CPR, Kant showed there is no perfect unconditioned empirical thing, i.e. the thing-in-itself or noumenon.
However it is possible to generate a perfect thing using pure reason, i.e. the thing-in-itself or noumenon, that is stripped of all elements of experience, sensibility and leaving only the form, logical, etc. This is where Kant explained how one can manifest God in thoughts using pure reason (not sensible-based reasoning) but a perfect God cannot exists empirically.

Kant reversed the CPR and apply the principles of the noumenon to his morality. What he proposed was to keep out the empirical and experience elements of the CPR and rely solely on pure-reason to reason out the perfect ideal moral in CPrR. The ideal perfect moral, i.e. CI should be based on logical principles.
What he implied was, we cannot find the perfect uncondition 'apple', the apple-in-itself via experience and in the empirical world, but we can reason out the perfect and ideal moral standards using pure-reason without relying on experience, i.e. the Perfection thereby Prescribed'.
Nevertheless whatever is ideal need to conform to the laws of logic and should not be something of "arbitrary invention".

Once we have these logical perfect moral standards that are not expected to be attainable, the next question is how to reconcile them with the practical.

Note the example on the Perfect Market of Economics which economists are in a way using pure-reason to reason out and lay down its principles. The Perfect Market is just a guide and not expected to be attainable.




There is a very big difference between reason and pure-reason. There is reason that is grounded on the sensible and experience (a posteriori) on one end, and reason that is not grounded on anything sensisble (a priori ) in the other extreme.
As I had mentioned pure-reason is totally divorced from grounded sensible utilities.
One example of pure-reason is 2 + 3 = 5 which is true and there is no need for experience to support it.
The CI should therefore in the same mode as '2 + 3 = 5' i.e. pure logic which do not need sensibility or utility to support it.



Nah, Kant did not claim the CI is divinely inspired.
What he implied was, for morality, it is more effectively to work from a top (perfect) down (the practical) approach then from a bottom up approaches.
In this case one is aware of the reasonable perfect limit which one is working on.
As I had stated, for Kant, the CI is not expected to be carved in stone tablet like the Ten Commandments, but it is a flexible perfect logical form which can be changed with varying conditions and circumstances.

The CI based on pure-reason is just like any typical planning.
One establish the ideal theoretical plan based on the current known and speculated Strengths, Weakness, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT).
The Plan (CI) stipulates the 'oughts'.

On the practical side;
Then one work the plan and adjust accordingly.
However the plan should be flexible, if conditions of the assumptions and SWOT has significant unanticipated changes, then one has to change the original plan and continue to work on it towards the stated objectives.

Sorry I typed a point by point response, but due to a flaw in the website, pressing Return can sometimes wide responses clean leaving you back where you started. I'm too pissed off to think it all through again. My main worry was there seems to be a contradiction between and a claim that morality is not all divinely inspired. Who makes the prescription. Surely Kant means that God has designed morality and has done so in his design of reason. This is why I think Kant is unacceptable of a moral teacher; as I do not believe in God, the design is in fact all Kant's., and as such ought to be open to the reason's of others. Sorry its a bit brief.

Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: The Golden Rule, revised

Post by Spectrum » July 9th, 2012, 11:16 pm

chazwyman wrote:Sorry I typed a point by point response, but due to a flaw in the website, pressing Return can sometimes wide responses clean leaving you back where you started. I'm too pissed off to think it all through again.

Yeah I experienced that very often. As a prevention, I now highlight my post and press CTRL-C to copy before I click 'Submit'.
Phew! it just happened to THIS post.
My main worry was there seems to be a contradiction between and a claim that morality is not all divinely inspired. Who makes the prescription. Surely Kant means that God has designed morality and has done so in his design of reason. This is why I think Kant is unacceptable of a moral teacher; as I do not believe in God, the design is in fact all Kant's., and as such ought to be open to the reason's of others. Sorry its a bit brief.

If you read Kant's hermeneutically, he was obviously a closet atheist. However after being reprimanded by the King's men, he had to be seen as a theist apologist, else he would have lost his career and had his head chopped off.

In the CPR, Kant stated explicitly God is an illusion and provided 3 significant proofs why god do not exists. He only compromised on the idea of god, which can be used for practical purpose just like many do with Santa Claus at present.

"Kant means that God has designed morality" this is a crazy idea.
What Kant did was to lay down the principles of how to approach morality which I agree with.
The problem is, he was not detailed enough on how to establish the 'oughts' and put them into practice.

As I had stated, many of the Eastern Philosophies had explored and established a complete set-up on the principles of morality on a theorectical basis with practical potentials. Btw, the emphasis is principles, I am not referring to precepts or commands. It will work for the individual.
However for these to work for humanity, there must be certain critical mass for theory to work.

------------------------
Here is point from Kant's Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals (Tr -Abbot):
Kant wrote:Thus not only are moral laws with their principles essentially distinguished from every other kind of practical knowledge in which there is anything empirical, but all moral philosophy rests wholly on its pure part.
When applied to man, it [all moral philosophy] does not borrow the least thing from the knowledge of man himself (anthropology), but gives laws a priori to him as a rational being.
No doubt these laws require a judgement sharpened by experience, in order on the one hand to distinguish in what cases they are applicable, and on the other to procure for them access to the will of the man and effectual influence on conduct; since man is acted on by so many inclinations that, though capable of the idea of a practical pure reason, he is not so easily able to make it effective in concreto in his life.

A metaphysic of morals is therefore indispensably necessary, not merely for speculative reasons, in order to investigate the sources of the practical principles which are to be found a priori in our reason, but also because morals themselves are liable to all sorts of corruption, as long as we are without that clue and supreme canon by which to estimate them correctly.

For in order that an action should be morally good, it is not enough that it conform to the moral law, but it must also be done for the sake of the law, otherwise that conformity is only very contingent and uncertain; since a principle which is not moral, although it may now and then produce actions conformable to the law, will also often produce actions which contradict it.
Now it is only a pure philosophy that we can look for the moral law in its purity and genuineness (and, in a practical matter, this is of the utmost consequence): we must, therefore, begin with pure philosophy (metaphysic), and without it there cannot be any moral philosophy at all.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

User avatar
chazwyman
Posts: 332
Joined: September 30th, 2011, 5:25 am

Re: The Golden Rule, revised

Post by chazwyman » July 10th, 2012, 1:01 pm

Spectrum wrote:
Yeah I experienced that very often. As a prevention, I now highlight my post and press CTRL-C to copy before I click 'Submit'.
Phew! it just happened to THIS post.
I started a thread on this subject. Maybe you could contribute to it so that a solution can be found. I used 2 or 3 other sites just like this one, but this is the only one that happens on.




If you read Kant's hermeneutically, he was obviously a closet atheist. However after being reprimanded by the King's men, he had to be seen as a theist apologist, else he would have lost his career and had his head chopped off. I'm not sure I can accept this. You can definitely say this about Spinoza - his version of God is so indistinguishable from Nature that his atheism is a thin veneer. But Kant states somewhere that a world without god is unthinkable, and the idea that morality is prescribed indicates a designer. In the days before Darwin it was very hard to assert a fully fledged atheist position. Even Hume seems to dodge a little bit - though I regard him as the first major philosopher where his position is contra theism. But where Hume unpacks the idea of God by philosophical skepticism, Kant rejects this by positing an underlying conscious logic.
In the CPR, Kant stated explicitly God is an illusion and provided 3 significant proofs why god do not exists. He only compromised on the idea of god, which can be used for practical purpose just like many do with Santa Claus at present. Are you talking about the place where he describes the great antinomies? If not please cite. I do not agree that he state god an illusion, but an unanswerable.
"Kant means that God has designed morality" this is a crazy idea.
What Kant did was to lay down the principles of how to approach morality which I agree with.
The problem is, he was not detailed enough on how to establish the 'oughts' and put them into practice.
I do not think I am crazy, just following your own logic, but in a way you do not agree with. How and where does Kant think that morality can be universal. Surely God is the basis of reason?

As I had stated, many of the Eastern Philosophies had explored and established a complete set-up on the principles of morality on a theorectical basis with practical potentials. Btw, the emphasis is principles, I am not referring to precepts or commands. It will work for the individual.
However for these to work for humanity, there must be certain critical mass for theory to work.

------------------------
Here is point from Kant's Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals (Tr -Abbot):


-- Updated Tue Jul 10, 2012 1:03 pm to add the following --

PS

http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... f=7&t=6600

"Badly Designed Website"

Check it out.

Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: The Golden Rule, revised

Post by Spectrum » July 10th, 2012, 11:24 pm

If you read Kant's hermeneutically, he was obviously a closet atheist. However after being reprimanded by the King's men, he had to be seen as a theist apologist, else he would have lost his career and had his head chopped off.

chazwyman wrote:I'm not sure I can accept this. You can definitely say this about Spinoza - his version of God is so indistinguishable from Nature that his atheism is a thin veneer. But Kant states somewhere that a world without god is unthinkable, and the idea that morality is prescribed indicates a designer. In the days before Darwin it was very hard to assert a fully fledged atheist position. Even Hume seems to dodge a little bit - though I regard him as the first major philosopher where his position is contra theism. But where Hume unpacks the idea of God by philosophical skepticism, Kant rejects this by positing an underlying conscious logic.
Kant did has a brush with the royalty during his time re his writings and received a warning. From his writings, imo, he is very likely to be a closet atheist.
I have not read where Kant stated, a world without god is unthinkable. Perhaps, Kant, like Kierkegaard understood the majority has no better choice (during his time) but to rely on a God for their psychological comfort. Kant however did say, 'I deny knowledge to make room for faith' (preface in CPR).
I know for sure, Kant never associate morality with a designer but rather with pure reason and rational beings with free will.

In the CPR, Kant stated explicitly God is an illusion and provided 3 significant proofs why god do not exists. He only compromised on the idea of god, which can be used for practical purpose just like many do with Santa Claus at present.

Are you talking about the place where he describes the great antinomies? If not please cite. I do not agree that he state god an illusion, but an unanswerable.
Kant began his section on Transcendental Dialectic (also called the logic of illusion) with a chapter 'Transcendental Illusion'. The three main sections deal with,
1. Paralogism - the soul
2. Antinomy - Cosmology, the world
3. Ideal - God

On "3. Ideal -God", these are the related sections; (ref Norman Kemp Smith Tr of CPR)
Section 3. The Arguments of Speculative Reason in Proof of the Existence of a Supreme Being [495]
Section 4. The Impossibility of an Ontological Proof of the Existence of God [500]
Section 5. The Impossibility of a Cosmological Proof of the Existence of God [507]
Discovery and Explanation of the Dialectical Illusion in all Transcendental Proofs of the Existence of a Necessary Being [514]
Section 6. The Impossibility of the Physico-theological Proof [518]

In this sections, Kant present God is an illusion, i.e. a transcendental illusion that has no sensible-empirical existence arising from the natural abuse of pure reason.
How and where does Kant think that morality can be universal. Surely God is the basis of reason?
I thought you could gather something from the quote from the Metaphysics of Moral (Abbot) I posted earlier.
From the above "3. Ideal -God" and the proofs therein, it is obvious Kant viewed God as an illusion and do not exists, how can he could have thought God is the basis of reason.
I think if you were to refresh more times on Kant's Critique of Reason, Critique of Practical Reasons, Metaphysics of Morals, you will get a better idea of Kant's theories.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

Post Reply