I was just reading something that I would be interested in feedback on, particularly from those of you in the religious field, though all are welcome. In his defense of rational tests for the morality of any maxim, Kant first rejects the notion of testing according to individual happiness. He concludes that mankind's concept of happiness is too vague and conditional to be used as a universal rational basis. OK, fine with that, but then he approaches the question of religious beliefs. He repudiates the notion of testing according to whether a maxim or moral precept is commanded by God, because rationally mankind must first determine whether God's commandments are morally worthy of obedience. According to Kant, if we already possess such a standard of judgment, than God's commandments are essentially redundant. Now remember that Kant was a good God fearing Lutheran, so don't think that he was off-hand discounting God. The moral precepts he was defending were the product of his Lutheran upbringing. What he was trying to do was suggest that there must be some innate practical reason by which, appealing to nothing outside of reason, we are able to discern moral from immoral or amoral precepts. Of course it can be argued that this reason is a product of God, but I have not read enough Kant to know if he would agree.
6 comments:
I don't know if I understand that last section. If one is discerning the morality of something with nothing more than reason, wouldn't attributing one's reason to a God then make that God a construct of one's own reason? Am I totally way off base? Does that even make sense? Does it have anything to do with what you're asking?
The last part was my own comment, that reason could be seen as a "gift from God" for lack a better term. I was just trying to point out that while Kant did not agree with using scripture as the basis of morality (that it must be based in reason) he was not trying to disprove the exsistance of God.
Gotcha.
i'm not commenting on kant's stuff yet, still thinking.
but,as any interesting side note, some link the adam & eve story to the birth of reason & understanding. before 'eating the fruit' they had simple morality. then their eyes are metaphorically opened to all that the world offers, the knowledge of good and evil.
i agree that happiness isn't a good defense of morality. people do a lot of crappy things that make them personally happy but are bad for society/life in general.
there could be a case for general human sense of decency. most cultures think murder and rape are wrong. then again, some may find our definition of rape to be too strict. and, while we find female circumcision morally reprehensible, others don't.
i think adam and i have discussed this a bit before. not to preclude further discussion, but i'm just realizing that. anyway, i would like to think that people would rationally evaluate things, make decisions that are morally right. but, i don't see that played out historically. i think in general we are selfish, make decisions that are best for us, and hope that it jives with society. then again, hitler thought eradicating jews was the right thing to do for germany and the world. i disagree strongly. this is an extreme example, but it still shows.
before the 2 world wars, rationalism was the answer. people felt that they could create a better world through alliances, science, rational modern thought. i realize this is a simplified way of stating things, but it is found in many a history text book. then you have these horrendous wars, and it doesn't look like humanity can figure out on its own. which, plants seeds for postmodernism.
i don't know what this all means for kant, who i have read even less than justin. it just shows that i don't believe that we will always do the morally right thing. this is true whether or not we base our morality in God or rational proofs or reason.
“Happiness” is a vague term and Kant was right to toss that idea for a basis for morality. However, the concept of pleasure/pain can certainly be used successfully to build a moral code upon as several Big Human Thinkers have done. (Epicurius is the best known) Simply start with the observation of what all living things seek, that which is pleasurable. That typically takes the form of food, warmth, sex, water, rest, safety etc. Next note that which all living things avoid, pain, which takes many forms. Then we call pleasure a “Good” and pain a “Bad” and shazam, we have a universal moral code grounded in the human experience.
Thus inflicting a pain on oneself or others is a Bad, and having pain inflicted on oneself is a Bad. Having a pleasure is a Good, and giving another a pleasure is a Good. Pretty simple. Of course it gets horribly complex when one notes that too much of a pleasure can turn into a pain. A drink of wine a day can bring pleasure at dinner, thus a moral Good. Drinking 3 bottles of wine a day every day will result in loss of family, friends, jobs, homes and health, thus pain and thus Bad. What looks like a kwazy orgy filled life of debauchery, this whole seek pleasure avoid pain deal, really results in a very measured and thoughtful ethical framework.
If you are surveying the history of human moral codes then looking at the Pre-Christian thinkers like Epicurius would be useful. Kant and his era of philosophers were reacting in some way to a long dominant Christian world view, thus they often argue from a point of view that sees reality only in that context. Their, Kant and more modern thinkers, philosophies also become fiendishly complex, which may either be because they are correct logical reasoning, or they are simply reflecting a time when horribly complex things are seen as “better” than simple things.
Post a Comment