Pupil
 
Reply Wed 25 Jan, 2006 11:46 am
Does anyone think that (forgive possible misuse of word) a categorical imperative might exist? That somethings you just 'ought' to do...period? Not just "You should do A if you want B", but simply "You should do A"

Obviously such a statement could never be proved logically, but some (possibly myself, not sure) might accept it as a self-evident proposition that there are certain things you should just do, with that being an irreducible philosophical concenpt. Just like the most basic logical premises are accepted with no proof, but are seen as self-evidently true, might be the same with basic morality? It seems like the more basic you get, the less dispute there is over morality.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 790 • Replies: 18
No top replies

 
echi
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jan, 2006 12:18 pm
I don't know if I would agree with your definitions (because I aint too good with words and things), but I think I get what you're saying.
I think it is self-evident that everyone shares an aversion to pain. Perhaps a good basis for morality can be found here.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jan, 2006 01:37 pm
Re: Morality?
Sure, there are lots of so-called "categorical imperatives". As long as you define a purpose or intent firstly.
0 Replies
 
Doktor S
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jan, 2006 06:10 pm
Re: Morality?
Pupil wrote:
Does anyone think that (forgive possible misuse of word) a categorical imperative might exist? That somethings you just 'ought' to do...period? Not just "You should do A if you want B", but simply "You should do A"

Obviously such a statement could never be proved logically, but some (possibly myself, not sure) might accept it as a self-evident proposition that there are certain things you should just do, with that being an irreducible philosophical concenpt. Just like the most basic logical premises are accepted with no proof, but are seen as self-evidently true, might be the same with basic morality? It seems like the more basic you get, the less dispute there is over morality.

Objectively, no, subjectively, sure...why not.
That you feel that there are things you just 'ought' to do is your business.
It is a completely different matter to build a case for things EVERYONE 'ought' to do.
Eat, sleep, ****, f-ck, are these not the true categorical imperatives you seek? Surely they are things everyone 'ought' to do.
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jan, 2006 05:55 pm
No I don't think so.

I think everything everyone does is ultimately self serving.

I help little old ladies across the street because it makes me feel good for lots of reasons, some obvious and conscious, others less so...probably most are related to my parenting.

I think psychopathy is the best place to look when trying to understand that. Look at people who think killing prostitutes is just something that "ought to be done".
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jan, 2006 08:07 pm
Eorl,
Then you appear to make my point, would you not concur?
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jan, 2006 08:20 pm
Yes, I think so Chumly
0 Replies
 
Ray
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jan, 2006 10:38 pm
Quote:
Does anyone think that (forgive possible misuse of word) a categorical imperative might exist? That somethings you just 'ought' to do...period? Not just "You should do A if you want B", but simply "You should do A"

Obviously such a statement could never be proved logically, but some (possibly myself, not sure) might accept it as a self-evident proposition that there are certain things you should just do, with that being an irreducible philosophical concenpt. Just like the most basic logical premises are accepted with no proof, but are seen as self-evidently true, might be the same with basic morality? It seems like the more basic you get, the less dispute there is over morality.


Yes, but I believe that you go through a certain reasoning to derive the statement. You see that others are people, you know what it is to be a person, and thus you say "treat people as an end."
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jan, 2006 11:08 pm
Heph scratches her head and thinks to herself... "Poor ray doesn't realize everyone at S&R has abandoned ship!"
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jan, 2006 11:46 pm
Law # 10

FIGHT TO THE DEATH TO KEEP YOUR POSITION AS QUEEN....

Oh yeah... there's no one to fight with...

Well this only applies if someone shows up I guess....

see next thread for the continued conversation with myself...
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jan, 2006 11:53 pm
Re: Morality?
Pupil wrote:
Does anyone think that (forgive possible misuse of word) a categorical imperative might exist? That somethings you just 'ought' to do...period? Not just "You should do A if you want B", but simply "You should do A"

Obviously such a statement could never be proved logically, but some (possibly myself, not sure) might accept it as a self-evident proposition that there are certain things you should just do, with that being an irreducible philosophical concenpt. Just like the most basic logical premises are accepted with no proof, but are seen as self-evidently true, might be the same with basic morality? It seems like the more basic you get, the less dispute there is over morality.

How would you refute the premise that you're entitles to your feelings and preferences, but the universe contains no kind of inherently correct morality at all? This premise would state that you may believe in say the Golden Rule, try to convince others to believe in it, and try to punish serious violations, but it has no inherent validity at all. I am not saying this personally. I really don't know the answer. But I would love to see someone try to refute it logically.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jan, 2006 12:53 am
One word: Auschwitz.
0 Replies
 
Pupil
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jan, 2006 02:43 am
Brandon9000, my whole point is that you can't prove the objective moral premise logically, anymore than you can prove the any first premise logically. You have to start with some first premise that you can't prove.

Yet we don't imply that all logic based on first principles (say non-contradiction, though it may not be absolute first), are subjective and meaningless, and we consider it generally acceptable to judge things (and other people!) by this logic based on unprovable premises.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jan, 2006 03:27 am
I would not go quite so far as to say that all first premises are unprovable, for example if one's initial premise is that people should not steal, you can make a valid argument that the society you live in will be better off because of this non-stealing premise.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jan, 2006 05:33 am
Chum-

What if the whole society is engaged in looting as with imperialism and has your starting premiss for domestic use only.That would be racist then.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jan, 2006 07:07 am
Chumly wrote:
I would not go quite so far as to say that all first premises are unprovable, for example if one's initial premise is that people should not steal, you can make a valid argument that the society you live in will be better off because of this non-stealing premise.

Certainly, but I interpreted the question to ask whether any ethical notion was inherent in the universe, apart from issues of practicality.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jan, 2006 01:37 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
Certainly, but I interpreted the question to ask whether any ethical notion was inherent in the universe, apart from issues of practicality.
A universal ethic? The only one that comes to mind that *might* fit the bill is "survive". Assuming one could argue such a base mandate has ethics.

right conduct = life

a. A set of principles of right conduct.
b. A theory or a system of moral values: "An ethic of service is at war with a craving for gain" (Gregg Easterbrook).
1. ethics (used with a sing. verb) The study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by a person; moral philosophy.
2. ethics (used with a sing. or pl. verb) The rules or standards governing the conduct of a person or the members of a profession: medical ethics.

I guess you would need to argue that life is good.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jan, 2006 02:05 pm
spendius wrote:
Chum-

What if the whole society is engaged in looting as with imperialism and has your starting premiss for domestic use only.
Good point spendius,

My premise was a non-stealing premise per se.
Yours is a domestic only non-stealing premise.

I any case it's not universal, only specific, and I tried to say as much in my first post.
Quote:
Sure, there are lots of so-called "categorical imperatives". As long as you define a purpose or intent firstly.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jan, 2006 02:08 pm
I guess you would need to argue that life is good, and because it counters entropy, perhaps you could.........
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
Family files lawsuit against school over Jesus - Discussion by Baldimo
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Morality?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/07/2024 at 05:30:32
▲ ▼