Immanuel Kant's catergorical imperative

[Lardlad95]

Ok, lets just disscuss this on a surface or superficial level.

Do you agree that something that is morally right is always morally right, and that something that is morally wrong is always morally wrong regardless of the situation?

For example you couldn't say that a murderer is wrong for killing someone and then call for him to be executed.

Thoughts?

[timbaly]

This should be an interesting discussion. I often find myself thinking about this a lot especially when dealing with what should be done with counter revolutionaries after the revolution. I suppose I think that crertain things are always morally wrong and certain things aren't. I say everyone gets a second chance. If a murderer kills someone that person should be reformed. If he/she kills someone else after the reformation he/she should be executed because he/she has broken the law twice and if done twice it will most likely happen again. Stealing isn't always morally wrong. I think it's ok to steal for things you need but not for things like bmws when you already have a car that works fine. It's immoral to steal things for fun or wnat but not for need.

[elijahcraig]

Morality is not a constant.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2003, 10:25 PM
Morality is not a constant.
Why not?

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2003, 10:23 PM
This should be an interesting discussion. I often find myself thinking about this a lot especially when dealing with what should be done with counter revolutionaries after the revolution. I suppose I think that crertain things are always morally wrong and certain things aren't. I say everyone gets a second chance. If a murderer kills someone that person should be reformed. If he/she kills someone else after the reformation he/she should be executed because he/she has broken the law twice and if done twice it will most likely happen again. Stealing isn't always morally wrong. I think it's ok to steal for things you need but not for things like bmws when you already have a car that works fine. It's immoral to steal things for fun or wnat but not for need.
Ok...so lets say you steal to feed your family...but what if you stole from someone else who needed to feed there family?

Is that not wrong?

Also what justifies stealing in one situation and not another? Did the man really need to steal food? His family could have gone out begging, they could have gone to a soup kitchen.

[elijahcraig]

Morality varies over cultures. It is in the eyes of those within the culture. We can direct morality in the right direction to fit the most humanitarian ideals, or you can push it into the most anti-humanitarian ideals (like the Agoutti society, or the Chimu Fiestas, where sodomy with rocks and play battles in which they actually murdered one another was considered a celebration, and moral). Kant is an idealist, I am a Materialist. I like Sartre better.

[Valkyrie]

You're right Lardlad, the penalty for murder should not be murder. Unless the one murdered is exacting the penalty, which is damn near impossible.

There are Natural laws and there are Legal Positivism laws, the former based on a sense of universal morality, the latter on social conventions. I believe in Natural laws, such as don't murder, etc. and I like Kant's Categorial Imperative - the gist being... act like what you do affects the whole entire world.

Kant was always Hegel's philosopical rival in that two schools of academia followers were born: The Kantian's and the Hegelian's. Of course, Marx was probably the most famous of the Young Hegelian's, and Ted Kaczynski, a Kantian. (the unibomber, and a little nuts, but also a Harvard graduate genius.)

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2003, 10:34 PM
Morality varies over cultures. It is in the eyes of those within the culture. We can direct morality in the right direction to fit the most humanitarian ideals, or you can push it into the most anti-humanitarian ideals (like the Agoutti society, or the Chimu Fiestas, where sodomy with rocks and play battles in which they actually murdered one another was considered a celebration, and moral). Kant is an idealist, I am a Materialist. I like Sartre better.
But we are talking universal morality, not what a particular culture views as moral or not.

I'm sure you are aware that Kant said that Moral Law is only that which can be applied universally.

So lets just say that these moral laws emcompass all society, so if a particular society does something imoral than that society breaks moral law.

Something that is moral law, is moral law regardless of situation, regardless of opinion.

So from that societies point of view sodomy with rocks and the like is always right regardless of the situation.

We aren't trying to discuss particular morals, we are talking moral law in general

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2003, 10:42 PM
You're right Lardlad, the penalty for murder should not be murder. Unless the one murdered is exacting the penalty, which is damn near impossible.

There are Natural laws and there are Legal Positivism laws, the former based on a sense of universal morality, the latter on social conventions. I believe in Natural laws, such as don't murder, etc. and I like Kant's Categorial Imperative - the gist being... act like what you do affects the whole entire world.

Kant was always Hegel's philosopical rival in that two schools of academia followers were born: The Kantian's and the Hegelian's. Of course, Marx was probably the most famous of the Young Hegelian's, and Ted Kaczynski, a Kantian. (the unibomber, and a little nuts, but also a Harvard graduate genius.)
All the schools of thought are somewhat flawed in one way or another...though I do find Hegel and Kant particularly interesting

I'm more of a fan of The eastern philosophies(currently reading the analects)

But over all I see Socrates as the greatest philosopher, no real ideas of his own, only the ability to destroy that of others

[elijahcraig]

No, I believe in no universal moral code. That would imply an external force on the world, meaning some sort of god. Which I do not believe in. Morality is decided by the culture, there is no universal code of morality or judgement, because applying one would only be the bias of the morality viewed through the eyes of those who proclaim a certain code to be "universally" moral.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2003, 10:52 PM
No, I believe in no universal moral code. That would imply an external force on the world, meaning some sort of god. Which I do not believe in. Morality is decided by the culture, there is no universal code of morality or judgement, because applying one would only be the bias of the morality viewed through the eyes of those who proclaim a certain code to be "universally" moral.
Who says that This morality need be imposed by any one society? or by any religion?

Most moral laws are found in multiple societies...

[elijahcraig]

Who says that This morality need be imposed by any one society? or by any religion?


Most moral laws are found in multiple societies...

Every culture is subject to influence these days, the world is globalizing very quickly. That has no infuence on the fact that there can be no universal moral code, only the moral code of the society which wins out over the others.

[timbaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2003, 05:29 PM
Ok...so lets say you steal to feed your family...but what if you stole from someone else who needed to feed there family?

Is that not wrong?

Also what justifies stealing in one situation and not another? Did the man really need to steal food? His family could have gone out begging, they could have gone to a soup kitchen.
Your right it is wrong to steal from the needy even if you are also needy.
Begging is a better choice than stealing but sometimes you will beg and get nothing and you have to steal because you are left with no other option. Soup Kitchens are better than stealing too but there isn't always going to be one nearby. Soup kitchens are for food and might not have other things you need like band-aids or new clothes to protect you from the elements. I believe it's justified to steal when you NEED and only when you NEED.

[apathy maybe]

This really should be in the new forum that is being created :)

elijahcraig is right when he says that morality is not a constant. We can look to various animals to find that many birds for instance the stronger of siblings kicks the weaker out of the nest.
Now we consider this awful but it is a tactic to make that bird population the stronger. In Sparta the crime was not stealing but getting caught.
We may consider ourselves civilised but awe still are animals and sometimes our older instincts come through.
Now I consider it a 'sin' (for want of a better word) to kill someone. But obviously others don't.
Have to go will add more.

[redstar2000]

I simply cannot see what a "universal" moral code would be based on. How would you arrive at what should be included and what should be excluded? What kinds of reasons would be considered legitimate and what kinds not?

As far as I can tell, "morality" is a historical concept, rooted in material conditions and class relationships. It has no "independent" existence.

As to the fate of overthrown ruling classes, my personal morality suggests they all deserve the guillotine...but some mercy may be shown depending on tactical considerations.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[suffianr]

Kant's theory implies Moral Absolutism, in which everything is bound by universal laws of absolutely right or absolutely wrong. We had a few class discussions when I studied this subject afew semesters ago, and most of the questions posed to us resonated to the frequency of: if murder is wrong, what if you kill someone in self-defence, or if stealings is wrong, what if you steal something, say medicine, which would save someone's life? Dead end, Catch-22 sort of stuff.

The textbook answer to the questions was the counter-arguments of either Cultural Relativism, in which moral absolutism is wrong because we all come from different cultures and what is wrong in your culture might be right in mine, and Consequentialism, in which morality takes a backseat depending on the context of the situation, and the direct consequences of your actions; if something morally wrong needs to be done in order to fulfil a necessity, say, the preservation of humanity, then it becomes morally right because the pros will outweigh the cons. But that's diverging into Utilitarianism, so I won't go there for now. :lol:

IMHO, thouroughly interpreting stuff like that would make you go completely mad. To no end in sight.

There cannot be complete adherence to either one of the theories above, as the real world isn't a case of either black, white or gray, but a combination of rights, wrongs, and maybes. Of course, the whole point of morality to establish a code of ethics, a code of ethics that must retain it's intergrity through a set of dogmatic beliefs that makes it legitimate and therefore immune to misinterpretation. That's the role of Moral Absolutism. It's the Full Stop that rests at the end of every sentence. Cultural Relativism and Consequentialism are the arbitrary opposites, the checks and balances to this, if you will. That's all it is.

[elijahcraig]

I see no need for a "mix" of the two. One implies an external master, the other a flowing science, of natural law. There can be absolutely no absolute morality, no concretes, why? In saying that you are allowing for a master who rules you and tells you what is right and what is wrong. And this is absurd, there are no externals, there is only the material world and its effects on societies, individuals, etc etc etc. Any attempt to render a pure absolute moral code would be stricken with class, culture, race, whatever, bias. It is not a possibility.

[timbaly]

Morality is not absolute. This is because of the fact that different people see different things as morally justified or unjustified. Nobody can tell anyone else what is moral or not because who is to say thier ideas on morality are moral? At different points in time civilizations have redifined what is moral and what isn't. In early American colonies it was morally acceptable to kill people who committed petty crimes like stealing flowers especially in puritan areas. Today it would be considered immoral, but who is to say which group is correct? If I were to say that the puritans were acting morally when they burned "witches" and Lardlad is to say it's immoral, how can you decide who is right?

[Valkyrie]

Confucious say:......Lardlad wise.. will go far with open mind.

I like the analects too!

Without have scriptural overtones, but wouldn't a standard universal gauge of morality be something like-- Don't do to others what you would not want have done to you.

True... Morality is not absolute atleast the practice of it, I'm sure the Neanderthals whacked eachother off with clubs without second thought.

So, maybe morality is an evolution-in-progress.

[ONE]

I agree with many here, Morality is not absolute.

If you look at the animal kingdom, there are no such things as morals. Would a bird steal another's food? Certainly! Does it feel guilty when it does? Hell no! Does the other bird accuse it of being immoral? I doubt it! The only thing that governs animal behavior is the concept of actions and consequences...

Humans are animals with the only difference being the possession of highly developed brains (and opposable thumbs). Since humans are social animals, they developed a set of rules (out of necessity) to be followed in their society. These rules became morals that defined what is right and what is wrong. If you really think about it, the basis of morals is the same concept of actions and consequences I attributed to animals.

[peaccenicked]

Morality is not absolute. It is relative to the common good. The common good is absolute and that is relative to the abolition of private property.

[Fidelbrand]

i think of Granny Castro when thinking of the Kantian deontology~

Castro believes that he is doing the good for his people, and he has a good & moral intention. Therefore, what he does & did are/were moral deeds ~

Venceremos~~~ ;)

[Lardlad95]

OK THEN LET ME ASK ANOTHER QUESTION

IS COMMUNISM ALWAYS RIGHT?

EVEN IF YOU ARRIVE AT IT THROUGH BAD MEANS?

Ssay you have a sucessful revolution...but during it you killed old people, the disabled, children.

You had to torture children for information, you had to kill pregnant women.

Is the revolution justified?

Or say the revolution wasn't bad means...but to arrive at pure communism after the revolution you must kill your own people to ensure it's sucess.

Is it justified then?


THere..some Deotological Arguements...Kant style

[suffianr]

It would have to depend on the circumstances. But there's a stark difference between sacrifice, and genocide. Morality should then be perhaps more Consequentialist in nature, rather than having to say that it was OK to slot a few grannies because we'd been waiting 10 years for the revolution. Or something like that.

Example: The Romanovs were sacrificed, to put it in a nice way, and they were a significant factor in the success or failure of the revolution of 1917, weren't they?

But does that mean all monarchies are thus expendable?

If, and this is really stretching it, you were to chance upon a country where the monarchy was indeed popular e.g. Brunei, and the success of a revolution necessitated the prompt removal of the royal family, what would you then do? Integrate them? Or would it end up in another bloodied photo-shoot?

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 04:00 PM
It would have to depend on the circumstances. But there's a stark difference between sacrifice, and genocide. Morality should then be perhaps more Consequentialist in nature, rather than having to say that it was OK to slot a few grannies because we'd been waiting 10 years for the revolution. Or something like that.

Example: The Romanovs were sacrificed, to put it in a nice way, and they were a significant factor in the success or failure of the revolution of 1917, weren't they?

But does that mean all monarchies are thus expendable?

If, and this is really stretching it, you were to chance upon a country where the monarchy was indeed popular e.g. Brunei, and the success of a revolution necessitated the prompt removal of the royal family, what would you then do? Integrate them? Or would it end up in another bloodied photo-shoot?
Ok...lets cut out the examples...examples always make it so people are biased.

Long story short...dothe ends justify the means?

[Valkyrie]

In my opinion, No. And this would be a changed opinion for me from the past. But, The end does not justify the means. The means have to or atleast should, justify the end also.

[suffianr]

Ok...lets cut out the examples...examples always make it so people are biased.

It is the 'bias' that determines both the context and the consequences; so, to answer your question, I'd say no.

No, the end doesn't justify the means. And no, the means does not justify the ends. :ph34r:

It's all a question of circumstances, theoretically.

To even ask whether the ends justifies the means shows that you are acquiescing to absolutism! In that you require an 'absolute' answer to the question. :lol:

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2003, 10:27 AM

Ok...lets cut out the examples...examples always make it so people are biased.

It is the 'bias' that determines both the context and the consequences; so, to answer your question, I'd say no.

No, the end doesn't justify the means. And no, the means does not justify the ends. :ph34r:

It's all a question of circumstances, theoretically.

To even ask whether the ends justifies the means shows that you are acquiescing to absolutism! In that you require an 'absolute' answer to the question. :lol:
SO I suppose you favor the hypothetical imperative over the categorical imperative????

[suffianr]

Not really. I'd lean more towards Consequentialism in such issues.

It's not much of a win-win situation. It bothers me that these sort of things end in extreme choices, such as either this or that. When I took up Ethics class, I was hoping to learn something like "there's always more than one solution with every problem", sadly I found that, even in Ethics, there are always lines drawn in the sand.

[mEds]

ElijiahCraig is defnintely a relativist. No constant meanings or universal truths.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2003, 09:16 AM
Not really. I'd lean more towards Consequentialism in such issues.

It's not much of a win-win situation. It bothers me that these sort of things end in extreme choices, such as either this or that. When I took up Ethics class, I was hoping to learn something like "there's always more than one solution with every problem", sadly I found that, even in Ethics, there are always lines drawn in the sand.
Personally I'm in favor of Siddahartha Gutama's philosophy "all things are impermanent" so I take this to mean morality is impermanent also

[Ctisphonics]

Okay, as some of you may of already guessed, I'm not a Hegalian. Compounded by this, I'm not a Kantian. I'm independant, people will say after I'm dead their a Ctisphonican or something like that.

I have to ask, do you believe Morality to exsist on it's own, or is the product of interaction (conflict)? Is it's exsistence relative to action/counteraction, or does it exsist independant of actions and thus independant of time and life (or just one of those?) Does morality exist independant of a moral code? Do aliens abide by a universal morality, or is it diffrent, or non-exsistent.

I have opinion on this subject, but will point you to the left-overs instead, they can do till my book comes out in a few years.

http://www.leadershipnow.com/macarthurprinciples.html
That is a link to a website by a former Superintendant at Westpoint. A huge section is dedicated to Kant's Categorical Imperatives, as well as giving a listing of books on the subject. This is a top priority for the training of US officers, it's one of the main reasons why we've been so amazingly sucessful in Guerilla warfare since after Vietnam. For all the complaints on these boards about American Imperialism in Iraq and Afganistan as well as 'the turning tide' , we have had an amazingly sucessful war. It will explain what OUR thinking is when it comes to Guerilla Warfare, not what some leftist writter claims it to be.

(p.s., MacArthur's Principles are on the last two pages, most of the book is dedicated to how West Point trains it's recruits, only the end is dedicated to abstract theoretics)

[Ctisphonics]

Here's what the book look like.
http://www.leadershipnow.com/leadershop/1703-9.html

[anti machine]

morality cannot exist without society.
society cannot exist without private property.
private property cannot exist without an under-developed mind addicted to individual survival.
But there is no good, bad, wrong, or absolute truth. Should there exist anything at all, humanity has long since corrupted whatever it was to maintain their own power (those that assume power). THESE are the talking heads that invented morality and conscience. Morality should be utilized to protect the PEOPLE's best interest, not the tool of some blood-thirsty jingoist whose only interest is power.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2003, 01:42 AM
Okay, as some of you may of already guessed, I'm not a Hegalian. Compounded by this, I'm not a Kantian. I'm independant, people will say after I'm dead their a Ctisphonican or something like that.

I have to ask, do you believe Morality to exsist on it's own, or is the product of interaction (conflict)? Is it's exsistence relative to action/counteraction, or does it exsist independant of actions and thus independant of time and life (or just one of those?) Does morality exist independant of a moral code? Do aliens abide by a universal morality, or is it diffrent, or non-exsistent.

I have opinion on this subject, but will point you to the left-overs instead, they can do till my book comes out in a few years.

http://www.leadershipnow.com/macarthurprinciples.html
That is a link to a website by a former Superintendant at Westpoint. A huge section is dedicated to Kant's Categorical Imperatives, as well as giving a listing of books on the subject. This is a top priority for the training of US officers, it's one of the main reasons why we've been so amazingly sucessful in Guerilla warfare since after Vietnam. For all the complaints on these boards about American Imperialism in Iraq and Afganistan as well as 'the turning tide' , we have had an amazingly sucessful war. It will explain what OUR thinking is when it comes to Guerilla Warfare, not what some leftist writter claims it to be.

(p.s., MacArthur's Principles are on the last two pages, most of the book is dedicated to how West Point trains it's recruits, only the end is dedicated to abstract theoretics)
I believe that morality, like all things, is simply a perception.

What I percieve to be moral may be different from what you percieve to be moral, now what I percieve to be moral may be generally simillar to your concept of what is moral, but the details is always were someone differs.

To me how is see my brother killing his wife(this is hypothetical of course) is different than how you perceieve it...why?

1. I know my brother on a personal, emotional, and mental level

2. I would know his wife on a personal level

you wouldn't know them at these levels because you've never met them.

So If I knew my brother's wife was a raging alcoholic *****(excuse the language) then I'd be more understanding than you would and whether or not I thought his actions were just or not would be different than what you think.


I'm a believer in Kant's hypothetical imperative, that outside influences affect how we act in a moral dilema.


Morality to me isn't constant, it's all how we percieve the factors that go into the dilema and how we percieve the morality it's self