View Single Post
Old 01-07-2010, 05:53 AM   #116
purifier
Forumite
 
purifier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: DisneyLand
Posts: 722
LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
How about starting with the example that you included in the quote above.

Re: disputing with judges - under the golden rule, a judge could let a person go because that is how they would want to be treated. Under the categorical imperative, the judge should act in the manner that is just, not in the manner in which they would wish to be treated. Hence why the golden rule has problems that are not present under the categorical imparative.

Really, I see problems in Kant's "categorical imperative" too - pertaining to that. For instance.......

What if a man is unemployed and cannot find a job, meanwhile he goes around begging for food because he and his family are starving. Yet none that he asks will give him any, so he trys to steal the food. But he is caught stealing the food for himself and his family, so he is brought before the court to be judged and is incarcerated. Because the judge should act in a manner that is just, according to Kant's "categorical imperative". How would this so-called "just manner", that the judge has done, actually be morally correct and truly the right thing to do compared to the "golden rule"?

Now you put yourself in that judge's position, with the current scenario I just described to you, while believing in Kant's "categorical imperative" Would you do it then? I'll bet 10 to 1 that if we took a poll on this current scenario, people would go the way of the "golden rule" (unless they are just plain heartless); because it is the real moral thing to do, to let the man go and drop the charges. And to also provide him and his family with some food, accordingly to the "golden rule".


Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
So some people should be excused from morality because the concepts are too difficult for them to comprehend?
Well no of course. Even the smallest child, who can read and write, should know right from wrong. But do you expect a child to understand Kant's concepts of morality at a very young age? This is where the "golden rule" is effective for a child at his/her early stages in life. It's simple, easy to read and understand, it gets directly to the point, with one universal definition of morals.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
In fact, let's back up a step further: do you believe that morality is relative? In other words, is it okay to murder someone just because you don't believe (or haven't been told) that it is wrong?
Of course not, deep down we all know right from wrong, but "wrong is wrong and right is right"; yet this statement in italics can also pertain to the "golden rule", for example: How in the world can we justify moral rightness in murdering a guilty person convicted of murdering someone else?

(I'm against capital punishment in relation to this btw, sorry I didn't mention that before. And a topic about capital punishment, would make another good thread debate IMO. )


Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
My apologies, but this statement doesn't even make any sense. The "golden rule" is a the product of religion. Your argument contains a contradiction.

By way of comparision, the categorical imperative is not derived from religion at all.
What do you mean by "contradiction"? What gives you the idea that this old moral code or philosophical statement, the "golden rule", came from religion itself? My personal belief is that the "golden rule" was adopted by most religions over the millenniums, when it was on it's own - not the the other way around. My point is, I don't associate the "golden rule" with religions, I believe they are seperate from one another.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
Okay, but now I'm even more confused. I don't understand how you can differentiate between a "real" answer and a..."non-real" answer unless you had some process or methodology for identifying the two. Whether you realize it or not, that process is, by it's very nature going to be some flavor of the scientific method.

I have no doubt that you sincerely believe that you after the truth. But when you tell me that you're willing to accept a made up "answer" just because it allows you to "fill a blank space on a page" (using a metaphor here), then I have to think that you're falling short of your own ideals. Sometimes the "truth" is "insufficient data". That's just a fact of life.

Well now that you mention it, and looking back over some my posts, I can see where some of my statements can be confusing to you and contradictive. So I will I'll try again, and start all over. Here's what I really think about all of this..... the scientific method, the real answer, what you call made up answers(or as I call them possibilties, but not proven or disproven yet) relating to the unexplained, etc.

Proving or disproving things through scientific methods can be a valuable tool in my opinon, and a way to seek out the real truth/answer, but it's not always been a 100% dependable for me yet. And in relation to that of course, is left the unexplainable. But..I believe the unexplained is not to be totally dismissed or accepted as is, we still need to search for the real truth until we get it. But meanwhile let's not dismiss all the possibilties too when it comes to the unexplained that science hasn't provided a real answer for yet. In other words, I want to keep those "made up answers/ possibilites" (and no matter how unbelieveable or fantastic they are) in the back of my mind without personal prejudice. But of course I don't accept any of them yet as the final real answer either, until they are really proven/disproven by some kind of scientific method sometime in the future. So I don't accept them ("made up answers/possibilties") as the real answers for now, because science has not proved or disproved them yet, but I don't need to just ignore them either; because I don't know, you don't know, and nobody else really knows for sure one way or the other...pertaining to the unexplained. Anyway..that's the best answer that I can give you on this and I hope this helps you understand where I'm comning from.


SITH HAPPENS
purifier is offline   you may: quote & reply,