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]

I'm not sure what "absolute good" would be.

Don't good things have to be good for something or someone in order to be good?

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

quote:

Originally posted by Subey 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 agree. Before man could comprehend his existence past the end of a stick he became well aware that it will be easier if he worked in a group to find food, survive against predators, etc. If mankind lived in a dog-eat-dog/every-man-for-himself world (although technically speaking the world still works this way, just not in the primitive sense) we obviously wouldn't have societies or economies. Before we could even ask, "why are we here" we had to live by a set of morals, at least loosely, in order to survive and fulfill life's most basic goal. We had to be able to reach peaceful resolution long before more advanced intelligence, let alone religion.

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

quote:

Originally posted by D-res Before we could even ask, "why are we here" we had to live by a set of morals, at least loosely, in order to survive and fulfill life's most basic goal. We had to be able to reach peaceful resolution long before more advanced intelligence, let alone religion.

You're confusing code of conduct with morals. We developed rules of conduct, laws, manners, etc. to govern social arrangements... morals are different and not necessarally consistant with survival.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles I'm not sure what "absolute good" would be. Don't good things have to be good for something or someone in order to be good?

Being good for something or someone would be a subjective good - something that is considered to be a good given a specific set of consequences. An absolute good is objective... it is a good in and of itself, in all instances, regardless of circumstance.

I think the summary is this.

There is nothing as good or bad in the universe.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Being good for something or someone would be a subjective good - something that is considered to be a good given a specific set of consequences. An absolute good is objective... it is a good in and of itself, in all instances, regardless of circumstance.

But there can be good and bad consequences for any seemingly "good" act. I agree that if there is absolute good it's way over everyone's head and we can't possibly understand its motive, or lack thereof, but as far as I can possibly comprehend, there is no absolute good that I can imagine.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard An absolute good is objective... it is a good in and of itself, in all instances, regardless of circumstance.

Okay. That makes no sense.

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

quote:

Originally posted by l�cid

What the hell am I doing in marketing??? I wish I had courses like this.

quote:

Originally posted by EvilTree Even when you say that humans have no idea what an absolute good is, you make it sound like absolute good is very much alien from human concept of good such as helping an injured man.

A wolf helps members of its pack, and it eats things outside its pack (i.e. rabbits). It has no concept of good or evil.

A guy is walking his dog in the park, and a car crashes into a river near by. He rushes to save the occupants of the car, and later is honoured as a hero. Everyone thinks he is a 'good' person. This same guy works at a factory that refines plutonium for atomic weapons which are designed to kill people outside of his pack's defined territory.

My point being, that if 'good' was a real thing in humans then it wouldn't be directed primarily towards those that fall under the umbrella of your local flag. And inverted towards those who face a different flag.



Hence during the cold war, the Russians were generally referred as being, 'The Evil Empire', and now we have the 'Axis of Evil'.

and

"Mexicans are taking our jobs", because obviously people in that Pack don't deserve jobs, only people in your own pack.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Being good for something or someone would be a subjective good - something that is considered to be a good given a specific set of consequences. An absolute good is objective... it is a good in and of itself, in all instances, regardless of circumstance.

But there isn't anything that is completely free of circumstanciality, hence there not being an absolute good. What would you say is an example of this 'absolute good'?

quote:

Originally posted by venomX But there isn't anything that is completely free of circumstanciality, hence there not being an absolute good. What would you say is an example of this 'absolute good'?

It does not need to be free of circumstance, however, it needs to be good regardless of circumstance... this is to say it is always good. I think I've been quite clear in stating I do not believe there is such a thing or if there is it is beyond the limited understanding that we as humans have, therefore, I cannot give an example of what would be an absolute good.

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?

sorry, wasn't around ta for a while other than my last thread;
i'd say the answer is that whether a religious foundation for ethics can be derived as such depends entirely on the beholder: when one comes to 'unknowns' one can either treat them as they are, try to find out what they are, or attribute them to superpowers. obviously the ones who choose the latter will be able to derive said religious foundation.

and now i shall read the thread and hope this post is not redundant.

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

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard

what brings you to conclude that morals are necessarily universal while ethics are necessarily situational?

quote:

Originally posted by Subey A wolf helps members of its pack, and it eats things outside its pack (i.e. rabbits). It has no concept of good or evil.

neither do humans, to the same extent. both wolves and humans do that which they believe is benificial to themselves. except humans do have a superfluous layer of stereotypes to good/evil behaviours.. but, it's superfluous, so meh

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On And all this Kant business is well and good, but what is the morality behind football? What is the morality behind any sport that has become a pseudoreligion in the eyes of millions of adoring fans who gather around shiny lttle boxes for the gospel and who idolize the appearance of athletic prowess?

lol, that put a big grin on my face, unfortunately i can't argue against your obvious position, instead i'll try to answer your semi-rhetorical

in this day, age, and locations in question (parts of the united states), adoring athletic prowess gives the fans the impression of increasing their chances of survival and reproduction via being "cool" relatively efficiently when compared to any of their own potential success sources.

also, extend yourself to a particular team or another, and when that team wins - you've automagically won too! what did you win? nothing. how does it feel? great!

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Inconsistent is putting it mildly. He out and out contradicts himself. [Kant] argues that in order to be moral an action must be born from a catigorical imperitive - it must be good in and of itself, which is tantamount to saying it must be objectively and universally good. This is in direct contradiction with his belief that the world we perceive is only a phantom reality and that true reality is hidden from us, in that if true reality is hidden from us then it is beyond our comprehension.... this would then mean that the catigorical imperitive is beyond our comprehension... if this is the case then it is impossible that someone could undertake an action because they know it to be objectly good... How could one deem something to be objectly good when they cannot determine what good is?

I don't think it's necessarily a contradiction if he were to hold that the propositions of morality were a priori synthetic. If they were a priori, they would be necessarily true like mathematics. But it would be a hard argument to make, that some moral judgments are "necessarily true."

And of course, the idea that mathematics itself is a priori synthetic has been thoroughly out of fashion ever since analytic philosophy did its work.

i've thought about this for quite a bit for the past few days and after considering all of the posts, the views presented for and against kant's proposition, i've come to the conclusion that i have a sweet ass.

Inspired by this thread, I've just bought Kant's "Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone".

Besides, it was just 2 dollars

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