TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- FAO: Moral Hazard (& Anyone else interested in Kant and Religion)
Pages (4): « 1 [2] 3 4 »

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FAO: Moral Hazard (& Anyone else interested in Kant and Religion)

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Morality cannot have a basis in pack social order as such an order is in constant flux. If morality were based on social order then morality would also have to be in flux. Look at a pack of wolves for instance: as long as the alpha male is strong then deffering to his will would be moral in as much as being in the alpha's good graces is advantageous to the individual pack member. however, the instant the alpha becomes weaker then an individual pack member it would become moral to oppose (perhaps kill) the alpha.

When I say it could be traced back it wasn't meant to imply that its manifestation in the human world was still 1:1

To clarify then, I'd argue that the concept of a static or concrete set of morals are just an evolved form of social order. A rule that has been tested and proven as beneficial so much that it can be set in stone. And as such then becomes part of a subset of 'human pack rules' labeled morals.

If we take as an example the 3rd commandment

quote:

3 you shall have no other gods before me.

It sounds a lot like your Alpha wolf example, but in an evolved form. Here the alpha wolf has been externalized because it reduces conflict over who is the alpha wolf. The alpha wolf is no longer in flux (lack of stability) and is now static (stability).

This of course becomes a problem when they meet another pack and believe that they have to fight on behalf of their externalized 'banner' wolf.

So to evolve this moral further... you start to say that Allah points to the same location as The Father etc. so that there is no need for members of the pack to fight members of another pack under the pretense that they are representatives of competing Alpha wolves.

***

Here is a picture of my Alpha wolf, it's over 100 years old!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FAO: Moral Hazard (& Anyone else interested in Kant and Religion)

quote:

Originally posted by Subey When I say it could be traced back it wasn't meant to imply that its manifestation in the human world was still 1:1 To clarify then, I'd argue that the concept of a static or concrete set of morals are just an evolved form of social order. A rule that has been tested and proven as beneficial so much that it can be set in stone. And as such then becomes part of a subset of 'human pack rules' labeled morals.

I'm going to ignore your diatribe on the 3rd commandment as it is a religious law rather then a moral and muddies the water with regard to the orginal question posed.

So you're position is that morals are a natural consequence of social order, correct? I reject this position because if it were true then morality would have to be dependent on the society from which it was developed. Again, this would means that morality is situational and not universal, therefore it is not absolute and by definition the rules of conduct you see as morality is really just ethics.

The more I think about this the more I have to agree with Nietzsche... morality is just the heard instinct in the individual. Morality cannot be true and is something that is imposed upon us by those who's will to command us is stronger then our will to command ourselves.

I think Marx (or was it Engels?) said that morality was an internalization of one's experience with "external" authority figures. Sort of like Bentham's panopticon: the watcher doesn't even have to be there in order for the watched to behave. The possibility of being watched (or memory of being watched) is sufficient.

Re: FAO: Moral Hazard (& Anyone else interested in Kant and Religion)

quote:

Originally posted by RJT So - my question to Craig (and anyone else who wants to discuss it - I'm looking at you Alon, Halcyon, Jiveboguy, etc.), does the notion that a religious foundation for ethics and duty can be derived entirely from reason and without divine revelation seem at all plausible to you?

I'm actually taking a course that deals with Kant right now, but we're approaching him from a metaphysical / epistemological angle (reading Critique of Pure Reason) rather than an ethical one. I've never read the text that the description mentions, although someone did recommend it to me a while ago. If you could post your readings (chapter numbers or whatever) in here, maybe I could check it out from the library at my school and we could discuss it in this thread.

Kant's points of reference are the "starry heavens above him" and the "moral law within him." He did work in science for years before publishing his better-known philosophical works (he was 61 years old when he published the first Critique). The "moral law" for Kant is one of the few points of contact between the self and the noumenal, "things as they are in themselves," which includes God I guess, or at least that's how I take it.

I'll have to read the the work you mentioned and maybe Critique of Practical Reason before I can offer a truly informed opinion on this topic.

And for a bald answer to the original question:

No, I don't think it's plausible at all, and it seems a very odd position for Kant to take given that (I thought!) he refuted all of the traditional arguments for the existence of God in the first Critique.

Well, I'll be reading a bit of Kant's "Practical Philosophy" compilation from Cambridge (I'll definitely post specifics once I really know them), but the other text I've just begun reading today is "Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals," which really does seem to conflict in unbelievable ways with my idea on how morality is formed. Categorical imperatives simply seem a ludicrous idea to me from the onset.

I also randomly purchased "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" today solely because this thread inspired me to read more Nietzsche. My experience with him is very, very limited.

Re: Re: FAO: Moral Hazard (& Anyone else interested in Kant and Religion)

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Kant's points of reference are the "starry heavens above him" and the "moral law within him." He did work in science for years before publishing his better-known philosophical works (he was 61 years old when he published the first Critique). The "moral law" for Kant is one of the few points of contact between the self and the noumenal, "things as they are in themselves," which includes God I guess, or at least that's how I take it.

Actually, Kant was pretty popular and well known by his mid 40s. Then he went into a period of near total isolation in which he reviewed and refined his earlier works.... which lead to the Critique of Pure Reason (oddly enough, we view this as his most important work but it was largely ignored when it published... probably because it is one of the most boring and difficult to understand books ever... even by German standards).

quote:

Originally posted by RJT Well, I'll be reading a bit of Kant's "Practical Philosophy" compilation from Cambridge (I'll definitely post specifics once I really know them), but the other text I've just begun reading today is "Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals," which really does seem to conflict in unbelievable ways with my idea on how morality is formed. Categorical imperatives simply seem a ludicrous idea to me from the onset.

Once you're done both Metaphysics and The Critique of Pure Reason you'll understand why I hold Kant's position on morality is contradictory to his position on human understanding.

quote:

I also randomly purchased "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" today solely because this thread inspired me to read more Nietzsche. My experience with him is very, very limited.

This is my favorit book! I have now read it 4 times and find new insights in it everytime. "Man is something that is to be overcome." I look forward to discussing it with you when you're done.

Good thread, enjoyed reading this.

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis Good thread, enjoyed reading this.

Wow, thanks for that contribution

I particularly like the way to Nietzsche has written "Thus..." - almost like a dialogical fiction.

Though it's probably going to take me a while to read, as it's purely for pleasure - nonetheless I look forward to it.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Wow, thanks for that contribution

Always here to help.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Wow, thanks for that contribution

Always here to help.

This thread has more man-to-man love and admiration in it than even Plato could stomach.

Re: Re: Re: FAO: Moral Hazard (& Anyone else interested in Kant and Religion)

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Actually, Kant was pretty popular and well known by his mid 40s.

I know. But most people today don't read anything he wrote before his 60s. That's what I was getting at.

For Nietzsche, if you want something systematic (as systematic as Nietzsche gets, at least), you could try Genealogy of Morals.

But Zarathustra is more fun, even if harder to interpret.

Re: Re: Re: Re: FAO: Moral Hazard (& Anyone else interested in Kant and Religion)

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles For Nietzsche, if you want something systematic (as systematic as Nietzsche gets, at least), you could try Genealogy of Morals. But Zarathustra is more fun, even if harder to interpret.

Ah yes, the slave morality... aka christian morality.

The great thing about Zarathustra is that it consolidates all his most important and revolutionary ideas into one well constructed and well laid out book (well four books by name but really one). It really shows his end goal... to elevate humanity by freeing us of our pre-conceptions, urging us to let go of all the constraints we have put upon ourselves so that we may reach our true potential (ubermenchen). I like to think of it as "the essential Nietzsche."

On a serious note, I think it would be good for everyone involved in the discussion to state their definition of morality. It's the first thing I thought of when I was thinking of replying. I can't start thinking about the relationship untill then.

quote:

Immanuel Kant argues that �morality leads ineluctably to religion�. He argues that we cannot understand ourselves as bound by moral duties without also having faith that nature is created by God and that we possess immortal souls. Moreover, in his late text Religion within the Bounds of Mere Reason (1793), Kant argues that central dogmas of the Christian faith can � under a particular interpretation � be derived as constraints of universal human practical reason, independently of any special divine revelation. Kant�s arguments attempting to show that general religious beliefs and specific Christian beliefs can be derived from the structure of practical reason have generated a great deal of controversy.

i would have to argue that this is complete nonsense. but at least now i know what "ineluctably" means. never heard that word before!

to be fair though i havent touched on Kant since about 1997, so my memory is probably a little vague. and the only thing i really remember was that our german/swiss/czech professor used to pronounce "Kant" in a rather amusing way

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced

I'm sorry.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard The more I think about this the more I have to agree with Nietzsche... morality is just the heard instinct in the individual. Morality cannot be true and is something that is imposed upon us by those who's will to command us is stronger then our will to command ourselves.

So, would you argue that there is no such thing as absolute good, if all morality derives from some sort of concept of good?

quote:

Originally posted by EvilTree So, would you argue that there is no such thing as absolute good, if all morality derives from some sort of concept of good?

yeah moral hazard, surely if there was a divine creator there would be such concepts as absolute good/evil wrong/right etc?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN yeah moral hazard, surely if there was a divine creator there would be such concepts as absolute good/evil wrong/right etc?

I don't think so - though that would absolutely be true for Kant.

I can conjure up all sorts of relatively apathetic divine creators

And for the record (just because I haven't clearly stated my position yet) - I don't agree with Kant in the least, in fact, I think I agree with the most fundamental aspect of Kant's ethics (that being that a sort of objective morality even exists).

And Clovis - asking me to define morality is essentially asking me to provide a definition I'm certain doesn't exist.

So, like, morality is that thing you do like, that you learn in church and like, it's how you know how to do good stuff for other people and like, not be evil and like, how to be moral and stuff. Like the other day when I like, went up to that vending machine and like, ordered a bag of peanuts and like, it gave me a bag of peanuts AND a thing of Twizzlers and like, I thought about leaving the thing of twizzlers there and like, you know so that the next person could like have them for free and like, that is morality mostly. It's doing good things for like, other people even though they may not deserve it like, because you know if you had something good happen to you and like, you knew you didn't deserve it, it would like, be a good thing for you because it might make you be nicer to another person and like, make the world a better place.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On So, like, morality is that thing you do like, that you learn in church and like, it's how you know how to do good stuff for other people and like, not be evil and like, how to be moral and stuff. Like the other day when I like, went up to that vending machine and like, ordered a bag of peanuts and like, it gave me a bag of peanuts AND a thing of Twizzlers and like, I thought about leaving the thing of twizzlers there and like, you know so that the next person could like have them for free and like, that is morality mostly. It's doing good things for like, other people even though they may not deserve it like, because you know if you had something good happen to you and like, you knew you didn't deserve it, it would like, be a good thing for you because it might make you be nicer to another person and like, make the world a better place.

...

.

...

I swear to you that I've heard dumb girls say things so incredibly close to that it would make you vomit with hilarious rage just knowing they exist.

AND THE FUCKING SAINTS JUST KEEP FUCKING SUCKING IT UP! DREW BREES IS A COCKSUCKER!

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.