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 03-05-2016, 10:29 AM
 
3,293 posts, read 1,892,813 times
Reputation: 3676

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
It would be obvious from my stance I have read the above paper and debated its claims by non-Kantian many times.


a sacred unconditional command of reason
Kant was referring the absolute moral principle in the transcendental sense.
At no time did Kant state a person cannot lie in the empirical, judiciary, legislature, social perspective.
Kant knew lie is a human nature and inevitable within the empirical world.
Note one of Kant's forte was Anthropology;
http://www.amazon.com/Kant-Anthropol.../dp/0521671655

The general rule is the absolute moral principle and thus the absolute moral maxim must never be conditioned upon any thing empirical consequences, e.g. pleasure, sufferings which are all grounded on the instinct of pleasure and pain and their related emotions.
Once the absolute moral principle is conditioned by any elements of consequences of the empirical, then the whole Framework and System loses its essential fixed-goal-post [also like a fixed lighthouse] to compute the moral gap to facilitate continuous improvement toward the unachievable ideal.


In this case, all actions that are acceptable under consequentialism can be acceptable under Kantianism but they will fit somewhere as a jigsaw piece within his complete system.

I told you my understanding of Kant is different from most.
There are not many out there who understood Kant's philosophy thoroughly and fully. Most has a superficial understanding of Kant because Kant's philosophy is very complex and one need some degree of mental gymnastics to comprehend his views. I am fortunate because Kant's philosophy [more rigorous and systematic] is parallel to Eastern philosophy [my forte]. This is why I did not mind spending almost 3 years studying Kant full time.


The problem with the misinterpretations of Kantian philosophy, i.e. ethics in this case is many relied upon secondary sources which were wrong in the first place.


Note I admit I am not very fluid with details and nuances of Kantian philosophy [but not the main principles] at the moment because I had diverted to study the Quran full time since the last 12 months.


The general point is Consequentialism is a subset within Kantianism.
In Kantianism one can use utilitarianism, consequentialism, axiology, and whatever that is necessary to manage the closing of the moral gap for the individual, groups and humanity.
For the sake of clarity here, can you give me an example in which good Kantian should do something different in the real world that what a good consequentialist should do? Is there a difference?

What is the justification for the Kantian maxims that doesn't resort to consequentialist-type reasoning?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-06-2016, 01:37 AM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,590,726 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost View Post
For the sake of clarity here, can you give me an example in which good Kantian should do something different in the real world that what a good consequentialist should do? Is there a difference?

What is the justification for the Kantian maxims that doesn't resort to consequentialist-type reasoning?
Note one of the main principle of Kantian Morality and Ethics is,
"Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end."
Note the phrase 'at the same time' is critical.


The consequentialist's main principle is his moral actions which are always as means to an end [maximizing pleasure, minimizing sufferings] in various forms.


The consequentialist's approach can be demonstrated by "trolley" casuistry examples.
Thus it is easy to give examples of how a consequentialist should act in some given examples.


Kantian Morality and Ethics is not something that one can practice in full at the present. At this point it is just an ideal model awaiting the maturing of certain human elements via neuroscience and other advancements of knowledge and technologies.
The example of how a Kantian should act when the model is in place is s/he should be a perfect team member doing the necessary within the Kantian Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

It is just like the good Scientist who must comply with the Scientific Framework and System and whatever his outcome will spontaneously be good Science that will be positive to the well-being of humanity.


Nevertheless the Kantian model is work-in-progress in a very crude stage at present. Certain morality aspects [slavery, racism, global warming, etc.] emanating from the UN (despite its limitations at present) is a Kantian model in progress but it is a very long long way from the Kantian intended ideal.

Last edited by Continuum; 03-06-2016 at 01:54 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2016, 11:42 AM
 
3,293 posts, read 1,892,813 times
Reputation: 3676
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Note one of the main principle of Kantian Morality and Ethics is,
"Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end."
Note the phrase 'at the same time' is critical.


The consequentialist's main principle is his moral actions which are always as means to an end [maximizing pleasure, minimizing sufferings] in various forms.


The consequentialist's approach can be demonstrated by "trolley" casuistry examples.
Thus it is easy to give examples of how a consequentialist should act in some given examples.


Kantian Morality and Ethics is not something that one can practice in full at the present. At this point it is just an ideal model awaiting the maturing of certain human elements via neuroscience and other advancements of knowledge and technologies.
The example of how a Kantian should act when the model is in place is s/he should be a perfect team member doing the necessary within the Kantian Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

It is just like the good Scientist who must comply with the Scientific Framework and System and whatever his outcome will spontaneously be good Science that will be positive to the well-being of humanity.


Nevertheless the Kantian model is work-in-progress in a very crude stage at present. Certain morality aspects [slavery, racism, global warming, etc.] emanating from the UN (despite its limitations at present) is a Kantian model in progress but it is a very long long way from the Kantian intended ideal.
So you can't actually give an example of what a Kantian should do in a given situation? How is that a useful moral system?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2016, 01:36 AM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,590,726 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost View Post
So you can't actually give an example of what a Kantian should do in a given situation? How is that a useful moral system?
As I had mentioned above, the Kantian system is not one that can be practiced in full at the present. It is not an effective moral system at present but its potentials can be realized in the near future. I am optimistic of it because of the trend of the expansion of knowledge and technology at the present.


The Kantian moral system may not be very effective at present due to various limitations but as I had stated there are signs it is manifesting and progressing in small degrees. I have given the UN as one rough [to be further polished] example.


As for the individuals with inclinations toward the Kantian Moral System, their duty is to continually improve [to be managed by philosophy-proper] their self towards their full potential to be in alignment with the positive ethos of humanity. Note Maslow's Peak Experience [Performance], flow of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, etc.
In addition, Eastern philosophy has various self-improvement [continual] techniques that will contribute progressively to the realization of one's full potential.


The point is as the average human potential are realized progressively, humans will spontaneously steer toward the Kantian Moral System naturally. To extract the model's principles is merely an academic exercise [as Kant had done ahead of time] which can be useful to some others.


It is the same [analogically] with natural self-made entrepreneurs of the past and present who were successful without management and leadership books. Such a faculty is inbuilt in these natural successful people. It is only the academic that research and study them and write books about it which can assist others.


Here is one example where the Kantian Moral System and its principles can be put into practice.


Take a Chief Administrator of a Hospital and his management style;

Normally a Chief Administrator may accept a certain incidents of unwarranted deaths [in relation to industry standards] due to the supposedly inevitable negligence [moral or otherwise] of doctors as fallible human beings.
A non-Kantian Chief Administrator will be resigned to accept the inevitable death due to negligence based on industry standards. If deaths happened he will give the excuse it is a human things and within the inevitable industry standard.


A Kantian-based Chief Administrator will be totally different from the non-Kantian administrator.
The Kantian administrator will not accept the industry standard and give excuses.
He will apply the Absolute Moral Principle and adopt the following maxim;
"There shall be no deaths due to negligence in this hospital"


As with the Kantian principles the above maxim is a transcendental principle and the administrator know full well in reality that negligence death will happened in reality and cannot be fully preventable.
Despite this reality of possibility of negligence death by fallible human doctors, the administrator will follow Kantian principles to set the above absolute maxim.


The advantage of the above maxim are;
1. It gives confidence to potential patients
2. There is an absolute standard [fixed goal posts] to work against.
3. The hospital operating system will be set up to meet such an absolute standard.
4. It will enable the hospital to compute the 'Gap' moral or otherwise.


In practice, at times, the hospital may achieve zero death by negligence but at times death by negligence will always happen.
Where it happened, the hospital will study the gap and take corrective actions to close it.


Note in this case, a Kantian situation always involved the individual and the collective.


A "trolley" case as in the consequentialist or other moral systems cannot be applied exactly to a Kantian.


If is difficult to generate an accurate example but,
Supposed a Kantian is faced with a situation of either killing one or 1,000.
There is no deliberate or conscious computation of consequences for the Kantian.
The Kantian would have been trained or [self-developed] towards his full potential and will just act spontaneously [if he is alone] without any sense of guilt. If the Kantian is with a group, then it is group decision.


What is critical is the review of the moral gap done within a Framework and System, after that spontaneous act to seek continuous improvement towards the ideal absolute moral principle and maxim, in this example, i.e.
'Killing is absolute permissible'

Thus the objective of the review for the Kantian is to ensure humans avoid being caught in such similar dilemmas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2016, 03:57 AM
 
3,293 posts, read 1,892,813 times
Reputation: 3676
Continuum,
I am giving an honest effort at understanding your description of Kantianism, but I have to admit that I'm having trouble. Specifically, I do not understand what exactly your view of Kantianism says we should do. Deontology says we should do some version of follow rules and consequentialism says we should make moral decisions based on an analysis of the consequences and means. From your posts, I've gathered that Kantianism says we should continually improve, but improve at what? Every moral system implies that we should improve. The purpose of a moral philosophy, however, should be to instruct us on what we should do.

Perhaps it would clarify things for me if you could give a Kantian solution to a moral conundrum? What does your version of Kantianism say we should do in the case of the fat man sitting on the bridge over the trolley track? Or what about the healthy patient in the waiting room of a hospital where there are five sick people needing transplants for five different organs? Or you can pick your own. The "predicament" of having to decide whether to kill one or 1,000 isn't exactly a predicament, as all other things being equal I can't imagine any moral system that would prefer killing 1,000.

I guess what I'm looking for is something other than "continually improve." "Continually improve" is good personal motivational advice, but it isn't instructive regarding what we should be improving toward. Consequentialism says we should do some version of maximizing pleasure/desire fulfillment/utility/etc. and minimizing suffering/etc. That gives us a very clear philosophical goal. It doesn't solve all of the empirical problems for us, such as how we compare two different types of suffering, but it solves the broad philosophical problem. I don't understand what that solution is in your version of Kantianism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2016, 05:45 AM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,590,726 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost View Post
Continuum,
I am giving an honest effort at understanding your description of Kantianism, but I have to admit that I'm having trouble. Specifically, I do not understand what exactly your view of Kantianism says we should do. Deontology says we should do some version of follow rules and consequentialism says we should make moral decisions based on an analysis of the consequences and means. From your posts, I've gathered that Kantianism says we should continually improve, but improve at what? Every moral system implies that we should improve. The purpose of a moral philosophy, however, should be to instruct us on what we should do.

Perhaps it would clarify things for me if you could give a Kantian solution to a moral conundrum? What does your version of Kantianism say we should do in the case of the fat man sitting on the bridge over the trolley track? Or what about the healthy patient in the waiting room of a hospital where there are five sick people needing transplants for five different organs? Or you can pick your own. The "predicament" of having to decide whether to kill one or 1,000 isn't exactly a predicament, as all other things being equal I can't imagine any moral system that would prefer killing 1,000.

I guess what I'm looking for is something other than "continually improve." "Continually improve" is good personal motivational advice, but it isn't instructive regarding what we should be improving toward. Consequentialism says we should do some version of maximizing pleasure/desire fulfillment/utility/etc. and minimizing suffering/etc. That gives us a very clear philosophical goal. It doesn't solve all of the empirical problems for us, such as how we compare two different types of suffering, but it solves the broad philosophical problem. I don't understand what that solution is in your version of Kantianism.
It is often mentioned that for one to understand [not necessary agree with] Kant, one need at least 3 years of sustained full time study or 5 years of continual part time study. If you have not done that you will face problem understanding Kant.


Given the limitation above, I am also trying my best to explain Kantian ethics. However I expect it will be very difficult given your state of comprehension of Kant's ethics.


Here is one differentiation;
1. Consequentialism is grounded on empirical consequences
2. Deontology is ruled by fixed moral rules.
3. The Kantian moral system is Principle and System Based that encompassed continuous improvement against absolute moral principles.


Continuous improvement against what?
The Kantian Moral System strives to improve against the Absolute Moral Principle.
If the Absolute Moral Principle [transcendental] is represented by Perfection, then it is improving toward [an empirical impossible] Perfection.


All other moral systems entail continuous improvement.
But what they improve against is a variable, i.e. moving goal post.
If one has a moving goal post how do one know one's goal or target is good enough.
If one achieved the set goal, then one keep changing the goal and never knowing what is the highest possible goal.
This has the possibility of complacency setting in.


The Kantian system set the absolute ideal standard, i.e. a fixed standard than which no other can be higher.
Thus if the absolute standard is 100/100 then if one is performing at 40/100 at the present one will know there is a gap of 60/100 to be achieved. The purpose of the Kantian system is therefore to continually improve from 40/100 to higher performances with the knowledge that 100/100 is an impossibility.


In the case of the Fat Man, if the issue is reduced to merely 1 life against 5 lives and other conditions, it is common sense the option the Kantian will adopt is to push the fat man down the track.
If there are other conditions, then one will have to compute the optimal consequences.
However the Kantian has another act to follow up.
The Kantian will ask how can the said dilemma be avoided altogether to meet the maxim 'Killing is absolutely not permissible.'

If there were 100 such dilemma, i.e. 100 Fat men were killed and 500 lives saved, the Kantian will continually improve to reduce the number of Fat men killed from 100 to zero gradually to meet the standard of the maxim, 'Killing is absolutely not permissible.'



This is why I stated the Kantian will not hesitate to apply the principles of consequentialism or other utilitarianism methodologies where necessary.
However the Kantian will always fall back on the total system and follow up with its ultimate principles.


Btw how you review the stack of criticisms against the consequentialism moral system.
People are nevertheless and will always practice a certain degree of consequentialism, however I don't see how we can organized it into a systematic moral process.


I cannot see any serious justified criticism for the Kantian Moral System except it is too idealistic to be practical as present. Nevertheless it not impossible to be applied in the future when the necessary elements has reached their critical mass.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2016, 11:55 AM
 
3,293 posts, read 1,892,813 times
Reputation: 3676
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Here is one differentiation;
1. Consequentialism is grounded on empirical consequences
2. Deontology is ruled by fixed moral rules.
3. The Kantian moral system is Principle and System Based that encompassed continuous improvement against absolute moral principles.

Continuous improvement against what?
The Kantian Moral System strives to improve against the Absolute Moral Principle.
If the Absolute Moral Principle [transcendental] is represented by Perfection, then it is improving toward [an empirical impossible] Perfection.
What is the absolute moral code, though? That is my question. What is this fixed goal post that we are striving for? That is what I am asking. I'm looking for actual moral principles here, not vagueness such as "the highest human reasoning."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
All other moral systems entail continuous improvement.
But what they improve against is a variable, i.e. moving goal post.
If one has a moving goal post how do one know one's goal or target is good enough.
If one achieved the set goal, then one keep changing the goal and never knowing what is the highest possible goal.
This has the possibility of complacency setting in.
Consequentialism isn't a moving goal post. Maximizing pleasure and minimizing happiness is very much a fixed goal post.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
In the case of the Fat Man, if the issue is reduced to merely 1 life against 5 lives and other conditions, it is common sense the option the Kantian will adopt is to push the fat man down the track.
If there are other conditions, then one will have to compute the optimal consequences.
However the Kantian has another act to follow up.
The Kantian will ask how can the said dilemma be avoided altogether to meet the maxim 'Killing is absolutely not permissible.'

If there were 100 such dilemma, i.e. 100 Fat men were killed and 500 lives saved, the Kantian will continually improve to reduce the number of Fat men killed from 100 to zero gradually to meet the standard of the maxim, 'Killing is absolutely not permissible.'
A consequentialist would do the same.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Btw how you review the stack of criticisms against the consequentialism moral system.
People are nevertheless and will always practice a certain degree of consequentialism, however I don't see how we can organized it into a systematic moral process.
I have not heard a complaint against consequentialism that I found convincing. There are some critiques that I think give us good reason to choose one version of consequentialism over another, but none that have convinced me that the actual consequences as measured in some form of pleasure and of pain are the most morally-relevant considerations when assessing ethical scenarios.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2016, 02:14 AM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,590,726 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost View Post
What is the absolute moral code, though? That is my question. What is this fixed goal post that we are striving for? That is what I am asking. I'm looking for actual moral principles here, not vagueness such as "the highest human reasoning."
The absolute moral principle of Kant is the Categorical Imperative [CI].
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative
The categorical imperative (German: kategorischer Imperativ) is the central philosophical concept in the deontological moral philosophy of Immanuel Kant. Introduced in Kant's 1785 Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, it may be defined as a way of evaluating motivations for action.
Unfortunately the above description using the term 'deontological' is inaccurate. As you are aware the default is we cannot take the information in wiki too seriously.
Nevertheless the wiki article will give you a rough idea of the CI.


To get a better understanding of Kant's CI, it would be more efficient to read Kant's 1785 Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals. It is recommended one has to read this book at least 30 times to grasp its full meaning.


Quote:
Consequentialism isn't a moving goal post. Maximizing pleasure and minimizing happiness [sic] is very much a fixed goal post.
It is a movable goal post and not an absolutely fixed goal post.
The consequences are empirical and the empirical world is subject to infinite conditions.
There is no way one can get a definite meaning for maximum pleasure.
Besides the terms 'maximum' and 'pleasure' are so conditional and relative, there is no way one can arrive at a fixed goal post for maximum pleasure or minimum suffering.
The most one can arrive at is a transitional fixed goal qualified upon a set of conditions.


Quote:
A consequentialist would do the same.
But not upon the absolute moral maxim, 'Killing is absolutely not permissible.'


Quote:
I have not heard a complaint against consequentialism that I found convincing. There are some critiques that I think give us good reason to choose one version of consequentialism over another, but none that have convinced me that the actual consequences as measured in some form of pleasure and of pain are the most morally-relevant considerations when assessing ethical scenarios.
That is your opinion.
I am certain when we dig into the cons rigorously we will uncover holes in consequentialism as a moral system. As I mentioned my focus is on Islam at present, thus I am not equip with the points on my finger tips.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2016, 10:26 PM
 
1,519 posts, read 888,527 times
Reputation: 2145
some people like myself are absolute Angels,I walk around the ants,and would be distraught for weeks if I killed one,theorise that boys.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2016, 04:15 AM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,590,726 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiethegreat View Post
some people like myself are absolute Angels,I walk around the ants,and would be distraught for weeks if I killed one, theorise that boys.
Maybe not at the present in your case.

However note the OP assert ALL human beings has the potential to commit the worst evil act.
Therefore no one cannot assert with absolute certainty one will stay an angel all the time.

DNA wise, the human brain is encoded with many neural circuits that enable evils acts but for the majority these neural circuits are merely inhibited or suppressed. Thus the potential to commit evil exists in all humans but at present they are merely inhibited [neural brakes].

If any of these neural brakes failed for some reasons then the person will be driven to commit evil.
Here is a research done on this subject;
Quote:
Eminent social psychologist Phil Zimbardo has made a career on the study of coercion, obedience, and evil. After years of research he has developed a theory on how good people can turn evil. Essentially, he believes that given the right social conditions, most people lose their moral compass and can commit acts that they would not think they were capable of.
Good People Can Turn Evil | World of Psychology
What is most noticeable in real life at present are the 'angels' who turned suicide bombers.
There are many reports by parents, relative and friends where their son/daughter, relative and friend respectively were known to be like an angel who would not kill a fly [ant] after reading in the News of the fact their son/daughter, relative and friend was that suicide bomber or beheader.

'Jihadi John' Was a 'Very Nice Person,' Friend Says
'Jihadi John' Was a 'Very Nice Person,' Friend Says Video - ABC News
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. The time now is 12:01 PM.

© 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