Check out the description of my first graduate level seminar class:

quote:

Course Description: 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. Many critics contend that his arguments conflict with his own conception of the moral law as a law of autonomy. Some critics contend that his interpretations of religious beliefs distort their true meaning. In this course we will study Kant’s arguments critically. Our main texts will be Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason and his Religion within the Bounds of Mere Reason. In the last few weeks, for the sake of contrast, we will read from the texts of Soren Kierkegaard, who presents a conception of how human reason, human freedom, morality and Christian faith relate to each other that is completely antithetical to Kant’s.

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?

___________________
last minute disco dot net

quote:

Originally posted by RJT Jiveboguy

___________________
+ + + AMBROSIA
lovebirds tracklist archive | vincenzo tracklist archive

Anyone...?

I have to go to campus soon and I was really excited to talk about this...

___________________
last minute disco dot net

Once you remove the deity, this day and age, sure.

Well I'll be the first to say that I don't understand Kant's position very well at all, but my understanding of his view is that he doesn't even begin with the belief "There is a God", but rather feels through practical reasoning one would quite naturally wind up at something like a Christian concept of reality and ethical duty.

c0r version: Kant feels the existence of God, as well as the existence of immortal souls, is implied when one reasons practically.

___________________
last minute disco dot net

I should start off by saying that I am no fan of Emmanuel Kant. I find that his philosophy often reflects a very deep conflict within him... especially with regard to morality, Kant seems to temper his positions with his (very deeply held) religious convictions, which were often at odds with his reason. The end result is Kant abandoning reason in defferance toward Christian doctrine, almost as if he was really arguing against his own beliefs. I've always viewed him as a deeply troubled man, which is often pointed out by Nietzsche - one of his strongest critics.

The question posed is a rather difficult one to answer. Practically, we cannot ever hope to reach a definitive answer as the vast majority of philosophers that have written on morality approached it either based on theology, influenced by religion or in response to one doctrine or another. Even Nietzsche's positions were heavily influenced by his upbringing as the son of a Luthern minister and years in seminary studies. I would argue that no one has ever approached the subject of morality without being influenced by religion.

Whether or not a moral code can be arrived at in the absence of religion is impossible to say. Do I think it is plausable, absolutely not, however, this is not because morality and reason are mutually exclusive, rather, it is because the influence of religion is so pervasive there are no learned persons that are immuned to it.

Personally, I reject any objective morality as being intellectually dishonest, as I believe all actions are motivated by some selfish intention.

quote:

Originally posted by RJT Well I'll be the first to say that I don't understand Kant's position very well at all, but my understanding of his view is that he doesn't even begin with the belief "There is a God", but rather feels through practical reasoning one would quite naturally wind up at something like a Christian concept of reality and ethical duty. c0r version: Kant feels the existence of God, as well as the existence of immortal souls, is implied when one reasons practically.

his failure is the time he was in. Reason and traditional Christian belief do not mix, and this day and age, if given natural humanistic reason, I nary a thought that anyone would wholeheartedly accept the Christian doctrine without being outwardly coaxed into swallowing that pill.

quote:

Originally posted by RJT my understanding of his view is that he doesn't even begin with the belief "There is a God", but rather feels through practical reasoning one would quite naturally wind up at something like a Christian concept of reality and ethical duty.

Indeed, this is a good summary of Kant's position regarding morality, however, Kant is dishonest with himself in proposing this. Kant was a deeply religious individual, as I stated earlier much of his philosophy seems to be going in one direction and then takes a massive turn to arrive at a position consistant with his religious beliefs. While he professed, that Christian morality as being entirely consistant with reason, I submit this was based on his Christian beliefs rather then his reason.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard I should start off by saying that I am no fan of Emmanuel Kant. I find that his philosophy often reflects a very deep conflict within him... especially with regard to morality, Kant seems to temper his positions with his (very deeply held) religious convictions, which were often at odds with his reason. The end result is Kant abandoning reason in defferance toward Christian doctrine, almost as if he was really arguing against his own beliefs. I've always viewed him as a deeply troubled man, which is often pointed out by Nietzsche - one of his strongest critics. The question posed is a rather difficult one to answer. Practically, we cannot ever hope to reach a definitive answer as the vast majority of philosophers that have written on morality approached it either based on theology, influenced by religion or in response to one doctrine or another. Even Nietzsche's positions were heavily influenced by his upbringing as the son of a Luthern minister and years in seminary studies. I would argue that no one has ever approached the subject of morality without being influenced by religion. Whether or not a moral code can be arrived at in the absence of religion is impossible to say. Do I think it is plausable, absolutely not, however, this is not because morality and reason are mutually exclusive, rather, it is because the influence of religion is so pervasive there are no learned persons that are immuned to it. Personally, I reject any objective morality as being intellectually dishonest, as I believe all actions are motivated by some selfish intention.

I'll definitely agree that objective morality is not only intellectually dishonest, but also a complete impossibility - but I then also have to ask whether or not you feel that Kant's Christianity so influenced his ethical position as to render his opinion on the matter irrelevant?

I have studied very, very little Kant, and have always struggled with understanding his idea of morality, and in general "duty" based ethical systems. Basically, I'm hoping a few of you can shed a bit more light on the man and better prepare me for this course.

___________________
last minute disco dot net

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Indeed, this is a good summary of Kant's position regarding morality, however, Kant is dishonest with himself in proposing this. Kant was a deeply religious individual, as I stated earlier much of his philosophy seems to be going in one direction and then takes a massive turn to arrive at a position consistant with his religious beliefs. While he professed, that Christian morality as being entirely consistant with reason, I submit this was based on his Christian beliefs rather then his reason.

See, this is what I struggle with - so often do his conclusions seem completely out of line with his reasoning that I'm left to wonder what in fucks name I just read.

He just seems the pinnacle of inconsistency to me, and that is very, very confusing.

___________________
last minute disco dot net

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard I should start off by saying that I am no fan of Emmanuel Kant. I find that his philosophy often reflects a very deep conflict within him... especially with regard to morality, Kant seems to temper his positions with his (very deeply held) religious convictions, which were often at odds with his reason. The end result is Kant abandoning reason in defferance toward Christian doctrine, almost as if he was really arguing against his own beliefs. I've always viewed him as a deeply troubled man, which is often pointed out by Nietzsche - one of his strongest critics. The question posed is a rather difficult one to answer. Practically, we cannot ever hope to reach a definitive answer as the vast majority of philosophers that have written on morality approached it either based on theology, influenced by religion or in response to one doctrine or another. Even Nietzsche's positions were heavily influenced by his upbringing as the son of a Luthern minister and years in seminary studies. I would argue that no one has ever approached the subject of morality without being influenced by religion. Whether or not a moral code can be arrived at in the absence of religion is impossible to say. Do I think it is plausable, absolutely not, however, this is not because morality and reason are mutually exclusive, rather, it is because the influence of religion is so pervasive there are no learned persons that are immuned to it. Personally, I reject any objective morality as being intellectually dishonest, as I believe all actions are motivated by some selfish intention.

There has been plenty of work in psychology regarding morality and it's non-religious origins. I do agree that in philosophy however there is always religion in the backdrop of any discussion on morality. If you're really interested in reading non-religious motivated discussions on morality evolutionary psychology and the new field of cognitive sciences has plenty going on in that regard.

To answer the main question, no I do not agree that morality has to be derived from religion. In our particular world context though, and taking into account our history, it would seem that it is derived from religion simply due to the important role that religion has seem to play in world affairs. I would say it is more of a illusory correlation between the both than a significant cause-effect relationship.

___________________
Poetry>Byron//Blog>TheMean

quote:

Orbax At that point you kind of crossed the rubicon and you might as well lay siege to Rome

quote:

Originally posted by RJT See, this is what I struggle with - so often do his conclusions seem completely out of line with his reasoning that I'm left to wonder what in fucks name I just read. He just seems the pinnacle of inconsistency to me, and that is very, very confusing.

Inconsistent is putting it mildly. He out and out contradicts himself. He 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?