U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Philosophy
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-28-2016, 09:00 PM
 
40 posts, read 19,286 times
Reputation: 34

Advertisements

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that Kant's CI has no teeth from moral or religious point of view, so its satisfaction is achieved by yielding to evolutionary psychology? But isn't this just utilitarianism? It's ought is satisfied by our underlying and (presumably) instinctual preservation of the species? I think of the transcendental as pertaining to the supernatural, but I take it your use of the term roughly equals "instinctual"? Sorry so many questions, trying to understand.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-28-2016, 10:54 PM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,584,535 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anomaly75 View Post
If I understand you correctly, you're saying that Kant's CI has no teeth from moral or religious point of view, so its satisfaction is achieved by yielding to evolutionary psychology? But isn't this just utilitarianism? It's ought is satisfied by our underlying and (presumably) instinctual preservation of the species? I think of the transcendental as pertaining to the supernatural, but I take it your use of the term roughly equals "instinctual"? Sorry so many questions, trying to understand.
Kant's CI has the strongest teeth for human morality.
It's ought emerged out of the highest degree of reason possible within all humans collectively.


The 'ought' is extracted from the reality of humanity [i.e. evolutionary psychology, instinctual preservation of the species, and MANY other variables] based on the highest degree of reason and it is uplifted to the level of the transcendental and not the empirical.
In a way it is some sort of "utilitarianism" but not related to the conventional sort of utilitarianism, i.e.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism where utility refer to pleasure, sufferings or other values.


This is why I stated Kant's Morality/Ethics is not deontological but rather it operate within a Framework and System with absolute moral principles plus elements of utilitarianism, consequentialism, axiology and others moral/ethical elements.


Because the 'ought' is uplifted to the transcendental based on the highest possible level of reason, it cannot be "instinctual" which is empirical.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-29-2016, 12:23 PM
 
40 posts, read 19,286 times
Reputation: 34
You say Kant's ought "emerged out of the highest degree of [human] reason possible" and "'ought' is extracted from the reality of humanity" and from this "is uplifted to the level of the transcendental".


Your language seems to suggest that morality arises from human reason which itself stretches outward to establish "absolute moral principles". If this is so, you've obviously put considerable thought into your thesis and it seems a reasonable position from a humanistic point of view. But as a theist a presupposition of mine is that in its highest and purest sense morality has its ground in the supernatural/transcendental and proceeds downward to humanity. I guess I'm slow in my old age; the expressions you use throw me. For example, what I posted above seems contrary to your final sentence,


Because the 'ought' is uplifted to the transcendental based on the highest possible level of reason, it cannot be "instinctual" which is empirical.


To me, the seeming humanistic aspect of the first part of your post doesn't jibe with the final sentence. The final comment places ought in a higher state that lies beyond the instinctual/empirical. Okay, well and good. A theist would be comfortable stating this, but I suspect you don't intend this higher state to be transcendental in the same sense the theist would claim. Is this correct that the transcendental absolute base of morality you contend for is a human-effected state distinct from a state created and/or endorsed by a supernatural Being? I suspect you're trying to put together a synthesis that might be acceptable to both theist and non- alike. If so, your efforts are commendable, but it's at minimum extremely difficult (if not outright impossible) to bring the two camps together with sufficiency imo.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-29-2016, 01:19 PM
 
Location: Miami, FL
8,088 posts, read 7,741,761 times
Reputation: 6650
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
DNA wise all human beings are potentially beastly and thus evil.
Human babies are born as necessarily narcissistic to facilitate their survival and this tendency is weaned off as they grow older.
Some toddlers kill and injure their younger baby siblings out of jealousy and aggression.
ZERO TO THREE: Aggressive Behavior in Toddlers
11-Year-Old Allegedly Kills Baby Brother, Camden Johnson, Out Of 'Jealousy'


Surely those toddlers who had injured or kill their baby sibling did not learn it from any one other than from their inherent potential of evil manifesting from their DNA.


I think more examples of the above will be more convincing to indicate All human beings are potentially beastly and thus evil.


The other supporting point is DNA wise human beings are 96-98% beasts [nearest the primates].


In addition, neural wise, the human brain contain [via evolution] the features of all the brain of every creature since the first one-cell animal emerged on Earth.


The above are the inherent beastly and evil potential in ALL human beings as embedded in the human DNA.



Most humans beings naturally grow up [as programmed] to be good people and a percentile has to be strongly guided to be good.
However there is a natural percentile say 20% who cannot develop sufficient inhibitors to control their aggressive and violent impulses.


This is the 20% [conservatively] of evil prone human beings that are critical as an ultimate cause to most of the evils that has been committed since humanity emerged.


Views?
Not according the psychologist at the nuclear facility I worked for. Typical human nature is to be a few degrees positive of neutral. If one were to visualize it as a gauge.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-29-2016, 03:45 PM
 
3,293 posts, read 1,888,137 times
Reputation: 3676
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Do you have any inclination to either Analytical or Continental Philosophy.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/74/...tal_Philosophy


I adopt both analytical and the continental philosophy depending on the context but my preference is to continental philosophy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_philosophy

Nope, the reason is because both are in different perspectives and sense.


1. Perfect triangle is within the transcendental mode.
2. A measurable imperfect triangle is in the empirical mode.


We cannot measure a perfect triangle because we cannot conflate the different modes.


There can be no 100% certainty in reality. You may 'know' and certain you are lying but that cannot be a 100% certainty.

It is not lying is absolutely wrong in all cases.


"Lying is absolutely not permissible" is taken a maxim. [note transcendental mode]
This maxim is only a guide and not enforceable for all empirical cases.


This is how it works;
One is not stopped from lying in the empirical world.
When a lie is detected [empirical], this is against the absolute maxim [transcendental].
This comparison result in a moral-gap between the empirical act and the absolute maxim.
Thus one must justify for the gap.
The justification may be it was necessary and optimal to the variable empirical conditions. In this case we can bring in consequentialism, utilitarianism, axiology, etc.


If the above justification is done within a judiciary system, then it is up to the jury or judge to decide.


However the additional process [critical to humanity] is the person must also check with his conscience to deliberate on necessary follow up actions, i.e. to strive to the ideal of absolutely no lying in the future.


The computation of the moral gap will then facilitate the management of one's moral quotient via the process of continuous improvement which I claim is the essence of What is Philosophy-proper.


The above is the same of 'killing' i.e.
Killing is absolutely not permissible - a transcendental maxim.
In the empirical world 'killing' will happened.
Then it create a moral gap that need to be justified and managed by the individual's morality [conscience] and that of society via the judiciary and the legislature.


In consequentialism or utilitarianism, there is no fixed goal post [the moral principles and maxim] for one to compute the moral gap and thus no effective process for one to manage one's moral quotient and competency.


Get the point?
I think this is a bunch of hogwash, and I can't imagine there are ten philosophers in the world who would say this is the best explanation of morality.

However, I am an analytic philosopher, and I think continental philosophy is mostly bullsh*t. There is a reason more than 90% of professional philosophers today work in the analytic tradition.

I do want to disagree specifically on your explanation of consequentialism: The fixed goal post is some form of maximizing pleasure and minimizing suffering, depending on the type of consequentialism.

I think our disagreement stems from two things:

1. You are a continental philosopher who is also into eastern philosophy. These are two traditions that most real philosophers detest.

2. Your perspective on the issue is incredibly narrow due to your study of Kant at the neglect of broader moral philosophy reading.


One more critique: How can I not be certain that I am lying? A lie is an intentional deception. Are you arguing for general skepticism with regard to knowledge here? Again, just to be clear, I think all of this is hogwash.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Anomaly75 View Post
Now this makes sense to me. It's Christian theology without theologyspeak jargon. Is this structure compatible with eastern philosophy?

You can't be serious. The jargon in the post you responded to makes theologians look like Charles Schulz.

Last edited by Wittgenstein's Ghost; 02-29-2016 at 04:15 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-29-2016, 08:11 PM
 
40 posts, read 19,286 times
Reputation: 34
Quote:
I think this is a bunch of hogwash, and I can't imagine there are ten philosophers in the world who would say this is the best explanation of morality.

However, I am an analytic philosopher, and I think continental philosophy is mostly bullsh*t. There is a reason more than 90% of professional philosophers today work in the analytic tradition.

I do want to disagree specifically on your explanation of consequentialism: The fixed goal post is some form of maximizing pleasure and minimizing suffering, depending on the type of consequentialism.

I think our disagreement stems from two things:

1. You are a continental philosopher who is also into eastern philosophy. These are two traditions that most real philosophers detest.

2. Your perspective on the issue is incredibly narrow due to your study of Kant at the neglect of broader moral philosophy reading.
Odd that you call yourself a philosopher. I've read posts and had minor discussions with some real philosophers and none of them had your arrogant tone. You sound like one of the swelled head wannabe "philosophers" on craigslist.


Quote:
You can't be serious. The jargon in the post you responded to makes theologians look like Charles Schulz.
I don't know what you mean by this, but get the impression it's an attempt at humor...right? So exciting to meet a "real' philosopher like you WG. My day has been made. Now you can go back to your job at Walmart all proud and feeling like a real man.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-29-2016, 11:30 PM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,584,535 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anomaly75 View Post
You say Kant's ought "emerged out of the highest degree of [human] reason possible" and "'ought' is extracted from the reality of humanity" and from this "is uplifted to the level of the transcendental".


Your language seems to suggest that morality arises from human reason which itself stretches outward to establish "absolute moral principles". If this is so, you've obviously put considerable thought into your thesis and it seems a reasonable position from a humanistic point of view. But as a theist a presupposition of mine is that in its highest and purest sense morality has its ground in the supernatural/transcendental and proceeds downward to humanity. I guess I'm slow in my old age; the expressions you use throw me. For example, what I posted above seems contrary to your final sentence,


Because the 'ought' is uplifted to the transcendental based on the highest possible level of reason, it cannot be "instinctual" which is empirical.


To me, the seeming humanistic aspect of the first part of your post doesn't jibe with the final sentence. The final comment places ought in a higher state that lies beyond the instinctual/empirical. Okay, well and good. A theist would be comfortable stating this, but I suspect you don't intend this higher state to be transcendental in the same sense the theist would claim. Is this correct that the transcendental absolute base of morality you contend for is a human-effected state distinct from a state created and/or endorsed by a supernatural Being? I suspect you're trying to put together a synthesis that might be acceptable to both theist and non- alike. If so, your efforts are commendable, but it's at minimum extremely difficult (if not outright impossible) to bring the two camps together with sufficiency imo.
As I had stated the Christian theological model [not barbaric Islam btw] is an optimal model for the Christian majority at the present. Whilst it is optimal it is not comprehensive.


A theist-Christian's absolute moral standard and the one I proposed are both transcendental.
The difference is the theist Christian's standard is justified as handed down from a no question to be asked God and controlled by threats of Hell for any deviations.
In addition the standards laid down are too loose and not complete to cover the whole of reality.
The critical point is, the God who issued such standards are fully conditioned by a book which is supposed written by humans within a certain period.


The transcendental standards that I proposed are extracted from the highest level of reason that is possible from the full potentials of all humans and that will cover the full range of reality.
These standards are not from a supernatural God in a book.


My proposals are not impossible, it is just a matter of time and awaiting the progress of humanity to reach a certain critical mass where the project can take off spontaneously. In fact this process has already started by it not that noticeable.
Note the case of slavery where humanity has spontaneously weaned off [almost] naturally independent of religious morals. In this case, humanity is progressing toward the ideal standard of zero slavery in time [ a transcendental standard].
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-29-2016, 11:51 PM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,584,535 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felix C View Post
Not according the psychologist at the nuclear facility I worked for. Typical human nature is to be a few degrees positive of neutral. If one were to visualize it as a gauge.
You are another of those who missed the point of the OP.


I did not say ALL humans are beastly.
I stated
ALL Human Beings are Potentially Beastly and Evil
note "POTENTIALLY."


This meant All humans has the potential to be like beasts.
DNA wise ALL humans beings evolved from beasts and whatever basic features of the beast are embedded in the human brain.
The difference is the human brain has the more refined prefrontal cortex than our nearest beast ancestors.

What is happening at the nuclear facility you worked for is the HR people would have selected employees who has a higher degree of impulse control over their inherent basic instincts.
However there is no guarantee the beastly potential in any of the employees could break through when the inhibitors that control his/her impulse weaken or snap due to high stress or any other reasons.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2016, 12:17 AM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,584,535 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost View Post
I think this is a bunch of hogwash, and I can't imagine there are ten philosophers in the world who would say this is the best explanation of morality.
That is true. I have read of many philosophers on Morality/Ethics and there are not many philosophers who agree my views because they have not thoroughly understood Kant's philosophies and others that are relevant to this point.

Quote:
However, I am an analytic philosopher, and I think continental philosophy is mostly bullsh*t. There is a reason more than 90% of professional philosophers today work in the analytic tradition.
Again this is a very narrow minded view as trapped in a silo in the middle of the USA.
Worldwide there are almost 50/50 philosophers who are in the analytical and non-analytical traditions, and many adopt a mix of the two.

Quote:
I do want to disagree specifically on your explanation of consequentialism: The fixed goal post is some form of maximizing pleasure and minimizing suffering, depending on the type of consequentialism.
At one time, the majority of humans would have pleasure [ease of fears] of killing the next tribe and eating them. At one time, slavery was maximizing pleasure and minimal suffering with less laborious task for the master.
What we need is a fixed goal post for human moral that is independent of time, location, cultures and human empirical variables.

Quote:
I think our disagreement stems from two things:

1. You are a continental philosopher who is also into eastern philosophy. These are two traditions that most real philosophers detest.

2. Your perspective on the issue is incredibly narrow due to your study of Kant at the neglect of broader moral philosophy reading.
I am very familiar with philosophy of the analytical [American and otherwise] tradition.
It is just that I am 60% non-analytical and 40% analytical.
Note there are criticisms of professional and academic philosophy as well, i.e. incestuous, bastardization, too rigid [spock/robot like], inhuman, etc.
I believe both has their pros and cons. I don't reject the analytical but lean more toward the non-analytical.

Quote:
One more critique: How can I not be certain that I am lying? A lie is an intentional deception. Are you arguing for general skepticism with regard to knowledge here? Again, just to be clear, I think all of this is hogwash.
I did not dispute the certainty [99.9 but not 100%] of lying. These days one can detect lying with a higher degree of certainty with lie-detectors that read neural activities. This may be an issue for criminality, social and political matters.


This however, is not an issue for morality because real morality is at the level of one's conscience and moral competence.
Within morality, one is supposed to be conscious of one's uncontrollable lying/stealing [if any] and take corrective actions and promote continuous improvements via one's conscience and moral competence.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2016, 02:51 AM
 
Location: Miami, FL
8,088 posts, read 7,741,761 times
Reputation: 6650
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
You are another of those who missed the point of the OP.


I did not say ALL humans are beastly.
I stated
ALL Human Beings are Potentially Beastly and Evil
note "POTENTIALLY."


This meant All humans has the potential to be like beasts.
DNA wise ALL humans beings evolved from beasts and whatever basic features of the beast are embedded in the human brain.
The difference is the human brain has the more refined prefrontal cortex than our nearest beast ancestors.

What is happening at the nuclear facility you worked for is the HR people would have selected employees who has a higher degree of impulse control over their inherent basic instincts.
However there is no guarantee the beastly potential in any of the employees could break through when the inhibitors that control his/her impulse weaken or snap due to high stress or any other reasons.

No. Because you added "and thus evil" POOF! there goes your argument.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Philosophy
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top