|
FAO: Moral Hazard (& Anyone else interested in Kant and Religion) (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| venomX |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Yeah yeah, there are also manners and lots of other considerations. :p
I think they're all part of a continuum really.
Narrow self-interest --> manners --> morals --> political ideology
The circle of consideration growing wider and wider. |
You'd be surprised how circumstantial considerations such as time, emotional state, stress and other such variables play a bigger part in peoples behaviour towards other people in contrast with those you have posted. Except for self interest I would say. |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Wow, I am actually watching football, too. :wtf:
Well, not so much watching it...I am bored at work and the tv is displaying the big game (I think that's what all you well-adjusted heterosexuals refer to it as...?). I don't know who Drew Brees is, but I bet he disappoints his parents and his peers on a very regular occurrence! I bet his fashion sense is months behind, too. What a heathen.
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? |
The morality is that Drew Brees is a ing who can't hold onto the ing ball.
I hate the Colts. Every time Peyton Manning wins a football game, God murders a crack baby who'd just been adopted by nice folks. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
Every time Peyton Manning wins a football game, God murders a crack baby who'd just been adopted by nice folks. |
ahhhhhhhhhhhahahaha |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
Kant's tough to read, but at least he ends up making some kind of sense the majority of the time.
Can't say the same for Heidegger.  |
|
|
| Zharen |
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
 |
I'll take your bunneh and raise you a:
 |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| how well are the packers gonna go this year? favre is the greatest geriatric to ever play the game :) |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Can't say the same for Heidegger. |
Really? I love Heidegger's work (even though I must admit I haven't read "Being and Time" thoroughly yet). His "What is Metaphysics?" summarises my world-view quite well... |
|
|
| Zharen |
I just couldn't help myself...
 |
|
|
| Lira |
The problem with "Thus spoke Zarathustra" is that the things Nietzsche says are interesting, but I find his style rather annoying.
By the time I read the 10th "Lo!", I felt like I was reading a novel by Weebl :p
| 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. |
And that reminds me of an interview I read with Frans de Waal - ever heard of him?
He mentions that our sense of morality is not much different from that of other primates, reason why he opposes the belief that morality and religion are tied together. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zharen
I just couldn't help myself...
|
 |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| 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? |
| 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 cannot believe in an absolute good being something that is understandable by humans. This is not to say that absolute good does not exist, rather that we cannot understand it. How could we as humans ever hope to understand anything that is absolute being as we have no frame of referrence for such a thing? Everything in human existance is finite and subjective; the absolute, eternal, objective, it is all beyond us. The best we could ever actually hope for is to come to some sort of peace with these concepts. Morality and moral codes are derivatives of what we perceive to be absolute good... perception is not reality.
PKC, your assertion that absolute good/evil/right/wrong must exist if there is a divine creator is contingent on that divine creator being absolute good/evil/right/wrong. Even if one accepts that there is a god I don't think one can confidently state that god is any of those things. Good, Evil, Right, Wrong, those are ideas that humans have created based on our understanding of existance... if there is a god it would not be limited in it's understanding of existance thus these ideas would not apply.
The reason questions of morality, right, wrong, good, evil, have been examined, re-examined, debated, studied for the whole of human existance with no firm resolution is because such a resolution is simply beyond us. This is why I will hold to the position that morality simply cannot exist in man as an objective code... it has to be individual and subjective... which is not morality at all. All the moral codes that have developed and are held out as standards, as truth, are really just attempts to temper the individual, to control others. Believe me, it actually pains me to hold this believe as it is at odds with my religious convictions, however, using reason I can come to no other conclusions. |
|
|
| prolikewhoa |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
Check out the description of my first graduate level seminar class:
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?
:conf: |
absolutely. just me personally, i don't have any religious beliefs to speak of. i think for the most part that when you die that's it, you're just dead. with that in mind, i believe it necessary to embrace life, as it is the only chance i believe you get to experience happiness, love, contentment, etc. where a foundation for ethics comes into play for me is the harm principle. it is of the upmost importance to enjoy all you can with your time on earth without infringing upon the happiness or security of others. therefore, just because my personal beliefs provide an example, i would argue against kant in this situation. |
|
|
|
|
