Kant’s Categorical Imperative in today’s world
I’ve been thinking about the modern world and how we live in it and how we look at it according to Kant’s Categorical Imperative and how that’s applied.
For instance same sex marriage. The position put forward in favour of it was that it’s the “right thing to do”. So this then is supposedly an ethical decision, a moral position. But is it? Can ethics be applied to it, what would the ethical argument be for it? If it’s a moral decision then what would the Categorical Imperative be that makes it a moral choice, and therefore the right choice?
Comments (108)
The whole point of the categorical imperative is considering a problem from the perspective of what would happen if everyone made this choice.
Perhaps it can be applied more usefully to the political issues of our time rather than to issue the one of same sex marriage. This is because most people who are opposed to same sex marriage are not really objecting with a view to what if everyone made this choice. It is not really likely that such a number of people would choose same sex marriage to be the point where the population would be likely to die out.
However, in issues such as ones like use of resources it could be useful to consider if everyone made certain choices, in terms of thinking in terms of one's own carbon footprint. Also, the idea of the categorical imperative could be useful in terms of social distancing measures. For example, if one thinks I just want to go out and enjoy oneself with disregard of any recommend distancing, it would be useful to consider what would happen if everyone made this choice too?
Of course, the way I am interpreting the categorical imperative is from a different basis to Kant because I am looking at the imperative more in terms of utilitarian ends rather than the general deontological approach. But perhaps ethics does not have to be a clash between an emphasis on duty or ends, but can combine the two criteria.
The categorical imperative, in its simplest expression, says a bible quote, "Do unto others as you wish to be done unto you".
In this sense, the gay marriage thing is divided. Gay people do wish to do others as is done to them (arsenokoitus.) Straight people (males) do not wish this. So the act, from a devout Christian viewpoint, is at best bilaterally periambiguous as to its moral value.
Coming from a female point of view, we need to ask Athena or other female contributors, as I would be only winging it and making random stabs at the dark hole, because god only knows that I don't know about femal philosophers who figured it out from a female point of view.
Quoting Jack Cummins
I guess what I’m trying to work out, with same sex marriage as an example, is whether it’s an ethical decision in supporting it or an ideological decision.
Quoting Monitor
But wouldn’t that mean that the action is to do nothing, which would hardly be moral.
I don't think that Kant made any reference to viewing the categorical imperative from a male or female point of view, although he was writing in an age in which females would have struggled to become philosophers. But even so I believe that the whole point is about universal principles based on a priori principles, even though I admit that I was slanting the imperative towards a bit more of a utilitarian one rather than the strict a priori principles.
No it doesn't.
The action would be to not interfere with the private actions of consenting adults who are not violating anyone else's rights.
But could non action be regarded as a Categorical Imperative?
Are you talking about the categorical imperative or just trying to find a basis from which to address social issues of every kind in a one size fits all approach?
Prior to the vote for same sex marriage the position of those for it was “it’s the right thing to do”.
Why is it the right thing to do?
You're right. But the implication applies in special case of sex. I'll spell it out for you:
Gay men like being fucked.
Straight men don't.
Straight women get fucked.
Gay women get fucked only with devices.
I am sorry to have been forced to be so vulgar. I sincerely apologize to the readership for my vulgarity, but anything more subtle, and the readership here won't get it.
This arrangement is particularly important in "do unto others as you wish to be done to yourself."
Steraignt men do fuck. Gay men do fuck. But straight men "Do NOT NOT NOT like to be done to them as they do unto others."
Please note: vulgarity here I used to make it absolutely clear what I mean. I do respect and I support the right and privilege and beauty of gay sex, gay relationships, and heterosexual ones too. My posts in the past have proven that. But I had to spell out this thing in the level of the lowest common denominator so everyone understands what I mean.
I’m trying to determine whether we are addressing contemporary issues from a moral or ideological position.
Just in case you missed this:
Prior to the vote for same sex marriage the position of those for it was “it’s the right thing to do”.
Why is it the right thing to do?
"If everyone acted like that, would the world be a better place?"
Such questions foster helping, cultivating, encouraging, and developing goodwill towards others. They are easily understood, easily taught, and can be put to immediate good use at an early age.
...and wrong too!
Not all...
It does seem that you wrote this thread with a view to initiating discussion about gay marriage rather than the categorical imperative, despite your heading. The only person who is genuinely discussing the imperative is Creative Soul, and the whole aspect of the discussion should not be addressed in respect of same sex marriage as the one social issue to focus upon.
If you do not vote in an election, you are still affecting the outcome. So you are not really involved in a non action.
I chose same sex marriage because of the statement “it’s the right thing to do”. Why is it the right thing to do? Same sex marriage is not the issue, it’s just that the statement was attached to their campaign.
The subject is not gay marriage but whether that statement is a moral statement.
Quoting Jack Cummins
I don’t think it’s is. I’m trying to determine what is a moral position and what is an ideological position using the categorical imperative.
Quoting creativesoul
So in this case: “the right thing to do” is what? how is someone to carry out that act?
I suggest you re-think this a bit... seriously. You've made several errors here.
You're arguing against The Golden Rule, not the CI. They are not one in the same. They do not mean the same thing to everybody. Some people realize that there's good reason for the two different names! Two different referents. Not really synonyms either.
What case? Sorry, want to be sure we're talking about the same scenario... Set it out for me, if you would...
Do you mean make clearer my point?
I don't think this thread was ever about the categorical imperative, so I am going to withdraw from the discussion.
:up:
Could be fun.
I'll go back and read...
“Thou shall not kill.”
That’s a categorical imperative. True?
I could not sleep and it is 3.45 am where I am so I wish you all the best and perhaps you need to explain the categorical imperative more fully if you wish to steer the discussion back on course.
Good advice.
Weird that you would say something not yet said. I'm reading the discussion. So far, I've seen no coherent line of inquiry.
No, it's not the notion of categorical imperative I'm discussing.
Quoting creativesoul
That’s why I’m here, to try and work out my thoughts.
Are we as a society moving away from morality to ideology?
Are morality and ideology different.
Is the categorical imperative an ideological concept?
If morality and ideology are different then which one should we choose to address education, science, politics?
Quoting Monitor
In theory then you would have to apply non-action to everything you do. Can you really see that as the moral choice when you do it sometimes and don’t other times?
“ So act as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in another, always as an end and never as only a means.”
It seems to me that ideology is about means. That is the difference from morality.
excellent point.Quoting Brett
Are you just playing devil's advocate or do you see real ramifications for the difference?
The categorical imperative deals with maxims, not individual choices. The most obvious maxim to satisfy the categorical imperative seems to be that, between reasonable adults, one should be allowed to marry whoever one wants.
Quoting Brett
Well, what is an ideology? Ideologies are usually systems of thought we name as "isms". Fascism, communism, fundamentalism. Is Kantianism an ideology?
What defines an ideology in my mind is that it dominates your thinking, your worldview. This includes your sense of morality. It seems to me that how you answer moral questions is usually the best indicator to whether you follow an ideology.
A Christian Fundamentalists who is opposed to gay marriage will obviously frame their decision in moral terms. For them it's a moral question with an obvious answer. So I think the proper question isn't between morality and ideology. It's between a morality based on ideas and one based on an ideology.
Quoting Brett
Action and non-action are constructs. In reality, while you're conscious, you are always doing both. Where action and non-action come in is when we set up certain obligations or prohibitions. Then we have to decide whether you did something you shouldn't have or failed to do something you should. The focus in that case is on a certain sequence of events which should have happened, and whether what you did was action or non-action depends on whether it was your duty to further or stop that sequence.
Quoting Monitor
In some ways I’m trying to work out where we’re going.
Edit: yes I see real ramifications. If I’m correct?
Quoting Echarmion
That seems reasonable, but if we apply it universally then it means an adult male can marry whoever he wants. It doesn’t say anything about age or consent. Nor does it address cultural differences,
Quoting Echarmion
Kantianism might be an ideology but it’s not a moral.
Quoting Echarmion
I don’t feel that this defines ideology well enough to decide if there is a difference. And the difference between morality and ideology, to me, is one of means and ends.
Quoting Echarmion
They may say they frame their their decision in moral terms, but is it really moral in Kant’s terms or just ideology.
Quoting Echarmion
I don’t know if a moral can be based on ideology. Is it still a moral decision?
The categorical imperative does not account for cultural differences. It's fundamentally a personal stabdard, it's supposed to help you make your own moral decisions. It doesn't apply directly to judging the conduct of others. Doing so would be notoriously difficult anyways, seeing as you'd have to guess what maxim they're operating under.
As to your other objections, appropriate limits can be worked in. Whenever you translate a maxim into a single precise statement, you're going to loose some information / need to add a lot of caveats, since in your own mind, you'll usually have a continuum of connected maxims, not a set of precise and isolated statements.
Quoting Brett
It does include a moral system, as I think all ideologies do. I don't know what "a moral" is exactly, unless you mean the metaphorical message of fables and tales.
Quoting Brett
I think any maxim that references a sacred text which only some people accept to be actually sacred would fail the categorical imperative, on the basis that a maxim that seeks to impose one of several religious view to the exclusion of all others is inherently contradictory.
There is an interesting issue with the CI though when it comes to views that are universal to everyone you might conceivably be in a relation with. If everyone agrees that the Bible is the true word of God, no exceptions, it'd be hard to conclude that following the Bible in all questions cannot be universalised.
Quoting Brett
Do you mean here whether the decision happens in a moral framework at all or whether it is the correct decision given a specific framework (e.g. the CI)?
Quoting Echarmion
I feel that this is one thing a categorical imperative is not. It’s true that part of our intellectual development is the ability to choose between two alternative actions. But being moral us making the right decision, and, according to Kant,
“The categorical imperative is something that a person must do, no matter what the circumstances. It is imperative to an ethical person that they make choices based on the categorical imperative. Another way of saying that, is that an ethical person follows a "universal law" regardless of their situation.
Kant explained his ideas about following the categorical imperative by introducing one more idea he called a "maxim." A maxim is another way of saying what we want to do and why we want to do it in one sentence. We can learn ethical maxims by applying the test of the categorical imperative. And he said we can live ethical lives if we use these maxims whenever we make decisions.” Wikipedia
Quoting Echarmion
This is a bit ambiguous. It’s true that we are responsible for making moral decisions, but it’s not a decision based on personal, or relative ideas of morality, it’s one that must be tested by the categorical imperative.
Yes, but only you know what your maxims actually are, and you must decide for yourself what is and is not the right decision. There is no higher authority here than your own reason. And there is no-one who puts you under any obligation except yourself.
Quoting Echarmion
My response here was to your comment; “ So I think the proper question isn't between morality and ideology. It's between a morality based on ideas and one based on an ideology.
— Echarmion
Can ideology really create a moral position?
Quoting Echarmion
Except the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative is reason in action and this reason is universal.
But acting in accordance with the CI is something you do, for yourself. It's not framed as a divine mandate you have to follow. Kant invites you to use it as a means to turn yourself into a moral, and therefore a free, person. That's why I call it a personal standard. The end goal is your freedom.
Quoting Brett
I am not sure. It depends on whether there is a "correct" ideology to follow. One might call Kant's approach the ideology of freedom. But the term has a negative, oppressive connotation.
Quoting Echarmion
Yes I agree with you on that. You choose to be moral. However to use a categorical imperative as a means turns it into a hypothetical imperative. A categorical imperative serves ends only. The moral crime of killing is not the means to be something, it is the end in itself.
The same with using it as a means to freedom. That is not why you do it.
In fact isn’t it the other way around; because we are free we can choose to be moral.
It's sounds a bit paradoxical, true. But the relation between the categorical imperative and freedom is not a means - ends relationship as with hypothetical imperatives.
A hypothetical imperative starts with a desired state of affairs - e.g. "I want to be rich" and then gives you the required steps. They are imperative only so long as you follow the goal.
But there is no concrete goal associated with freedom that you can reach in a number of steps. It's not a state of affairs. It's a way of being. And this way of being is following the imperative of reason categorically.
Okay, I could unpack this more but I don’t think it’s necessary because we can still move forward without doing so. We are free and therefore we can choose to be moral.
Quoting Brett
That we can agree on.
But when you say “ CI is something you do, for yourself” do you mean you choose it yourself or you do it not for yourself but for others. Does it make you a moral person because you do it for yourself?
I still want to find out if morality is different from ideology. What is ideology? What is the source of ideology? If it stems from moral acts and thoughts, which is based on the categorical imperative, which is based on our intellectual faculties, then it is moral. And the only way I can think of it being connected to morals is if the categorical imperative can be applied to it.
The core idea behind the CI is to dissolve the boundary between yourself and "others" by imagining yourself to simultaneously be every other person. One might say you turn yourself into the metaphysical all-encompassing logos of old.
Instead of acting in a specific interest (yours or that of any other person), you act solely on the basis of duty to that overarching reason. But because that reason does not actually exist as a force outside of you, the duty is really only to yourself. It arises when you recognise yourself as a subject and is a direct consequence of thinking through the implications.
So it's not something you do for yourself as in a self-help philosophy. It's not something pleasurable or fulfilling, necessarily. It's just what's dictated by your reason if you consider what it means to be a subject that shares a world with other subjects.
Quoting Brett
If we start with etymology, the source of the term ideology is the term idea, which is also related to the ideal. Ideas are not things. They're abstract thoughts. A major category of thoughts.
An ideology is a collection of ideas that is weaved so tightly that it becomes an overwhelming framework for everything you think and do. This is usually a bad thing, but equality, freedom, humanity, are also ideas. So there might be a truly moral ideology, one which only leads to maxims which conform with the CI. Indeed Kant certainly wove a complex system out of ideas, so maybe the CI is, as I said earlier, itself an ideology.
But this seems perilously close to semantics, wordplay. What do you actually want to know? Why is the difference between ideology and morality important? Which real situation do you want to resolve?
Habermas relies heavily on the categorical imperative in his theories on legitimation in discourse theory and deliberative democracy. Certainly he feels that it is a collective principle. Inasmuch as duties and rights reciprocally entail this seems to make sense.
The c.i. Is not an application to the world; it is a command of reason, that conditions the subjective moral determinations applied because of the world. In effect, the c.i. has to do with the moral agent, not the world in which the agent happens to find himself.
Not to kill could be a c.i., insofar as the c.i. begins with “act only.....”, which makes explicit that if a moral agent does not kill, he is in accordance with his own principles. But that’s not the problem. The problem arises in the continuation of the c.i. to its end, which is, “....were to be a universal law”.
In other words....be very careful what you wish for, as there are no possible exceptions whatsoever to a c.i.
Hey......
Yeah, true, the number depending on the reference literature. Kant himself says there is only one, then goes on to alter it slightly so one becomes three: so-called the law of universality, the law of autonomy and the law of humanity. Gregor, Palmquist and Guyer say there are eleven. Hypothetical imperatives, on the other hand, are as numerous as the desires from which they arise.
Me...I stick with the Good Doctor:
“....There is therefore but one categorical imperative, namely, this: Act only.....”
(FPMM, 1785, pagination unavailable on iPad ebook......sorry)
Let the good times roll.....
Quoting Echarmion
I would class both Catholicism and Marxism as ideologies. One is based on a set of morals (questionable) the other “ a method of socioeconomic analysis that uses a materialist interpretation of historical development, better known as historical materialism, to understand class relations and social conflict as well as a dialectical perspective to view social transformation.” Wikipedia
Where an ideology is based and develops from a moral position it seems to me that the moral has been drawn into service of the idea. Which means it’s no longer a choice to be made by the individual but virtually a maxim to live by. If the choice is no longer made by the individual then that person is no longer free and if they are not free to choose between to alternative outcomes then they are not capable of making a moral position.
Quoting Mww
Is “command” correct, a command of reason? Would you stand by that? Because isn’t reason a universal human faculty and from that comes the ability to choose between possible outcomes? It’s always a choice, unless you live by an stablished maxim, which is what cultures are. Can reason command anything?
Quoting Echarmion
It seems to me that the one thing we all have in common is reason. Reason cannot very according to culture, can it? There are no degrees of reason like skin colour for instance.
Edit: sorry, I might have misread you there. It as in response to this.
“ The most obvious maxim to satisfy the categorical imperative seems to be that, between reasonable adults, one should be allowed to marry whoever one wants.”
My query is that if one should be able to marry whoever one wants, and that is a universal maxim, is it moral if it involves marriage between an adult and a child in a culture that approves of it?
Absolutely. In other words.......be careful what you wish for.
If it’s a command of reason then why so many bad acts in the world? A reason for doing something isn’t the same as reason/rational is it?
Not really. A command of reason is just a metaphysical precept (Kant calls it a formula), that grounds stuff like duty, respect, self-obligation, the principle of law. It’s a guide for a particular manifestation of subjective moral determinations, a priori. And I stand by that, even if I haven’t always complied with it.
Quoting Brett
Reason, the composite rational methodology, is a universal human condition, yes, but humans don’t use reason, the active procedural faculty, the same universally.
Proper morality does not choose between outcomes; it decides the one outcome that conforms to the agent’s moral constitution. Kant calls it the worthiness of being happy, but I can leave that be, myself.
Because “bad” is relative.
Quoting Mww
Any proof of that?
Nope. Speculative epistemology holds no proofs. Examples of it......well, there lots of that, from which valid inductive inferences can be drawn.
Quoting Mww
That’s not what I meant. Part of our reason is the ability to choose between two possible outcomes. That’s what makes us free, as opposed to animals. Being free we can make a moral choice. We can make the wrong one as well. If C.I. is at the command of reason then why the wrong choice?
Quoting Mww
Okay, then can you give examples?
Edit: sorry poor logic there, didn’t think it through properly.
On the issue of same-sex marriage, the question is, "what if everybody chose same-sex marriage?" Well, what would happen? Any ideas?
Also, I want to bounce my thoughts on the matter off of the two of you and others too if they're reading this.
First off, I believe Kant wanted to ground ethics in logic and my take on that is Kant's theory of morality makes immorality a logical contradiction - absurd - or is the other way round??!!
The classic example in Kantian ethics is about thievery. The categorical imperative requires us to ask, "what if everybody were stealing?". This leads to a contradiction, that between theft being prohibited by our common agreement in re private property and then sanctioning it. It's impossible to talk of private property when you allow stealing. This is the essence of Kant's theory (for me at least).
Coming to the matter of same-sex marriages, for a Kantian perspective one would have to first ask the question, "what is marriage?"
If you say marriage is to have children then the Kantian position would be that same-sex marriages is immoral because they can't produce children. There's a contradiction there - marriage is to have children and same-sex marriage that can't produce children.
However, if you say marriage is to find love then Kant would, in my humble opinion, not be able to raise moral objections to same-sex marriage for no contradiction exists.
:chin:
One cannot move away from what counts as acceptable/unacceptable thought, belief, and/or behaviour, for that standard directly influences one's own thought, belief, and actions, both deliberate and not. All things moral are about acceptable/unacceptable thought, belief, and behavior. Ideology is not always.
So the proof of the moral rests in the absurdity of the contradiction?
I feel that morals are grounded in ethics, and suspect that morals can become modified by cultural conditions, hence slightly different takes on right and wrong among different cultures. It strikes me that culture is ideology and therefore morals are collective, not individual. Otherwise there exists a threat to stability.
So ideology is a set of ideas that bends morals to suit its intent. In the end those morals appear as maxims to support that ideology.
But an ideology never actually has complete control over your thoughts. Ideologies don't permanently turn people into zombies. The abstract ability to choose is still there.
If we stay with Kant, it doesn't make much of a difference whether you act in accordance with some interpretation of biblical teaching or on a principle of pure Hedonism. Neither would conform to the CI, and so neither would be moral.
Quoting Brett
That is certainly the Kantian position.
Quoting Brett
That depends on what reason tells you about children and their reason. Do you include children in your notion of all subjects? If yes, then could this be made a universal law, even from the perspective of the children?
In this I regard the child as not having a choice.
In that case, you have found a contradiction. The maxim that everyone should marry who they choose, including children, includes a contradiction because it robs the children of that very choice. It cannot be universalised and hence is not moral.
Quoting Echarmion
If I consider Catholicism and Marxism as ideologies then I see people very much under control, when to go against the ideology means you may burn in hell or end up in a gulag. I might add for consideration the Stockholm Syndrome.
Quoting Echarmion
So then it may be more of an ideological position.
If we were to follow the strict logic of Kantian logic regarding Kant's ideas about same sex marriage I think that it would be to say that it is wrong.
However, when I was puzzling over this thread when unable to sleep the night before last, I was wondering why Brett was asking about marriage because so many people do not get married any longer, whether straight or gay. Posing this in terms of children, they are being born anyway. When I think of gay marriage the person who comes to my mind is Elton John. Out of the few friends I have who have got married most of the marriages collapsed within a few years and ended in divorce.
I hate to think what Kant would make of all this. I know that many regard the whole state of affairs as an indication of degeneration. So, if anything I would reframe the question in terms of the Kantian categorical imperative: what if one chooses to have relationships with others but abandoning the whole idea of marriage?
Yes but that's my opinion. Every immoral thought/speech/act can be reduced to a contradiction, in Kant's moral theory, of the kind I demonstrated in my earlier post.
For instance, life has value is a (allegedly) true proposition. If everybody started murdering, it would contradict that true proposition. As per the categorical imperative, the appropriate question is, "what if everybody starts murdering?"
The reason why the question is framed with everybody in mind is that if the question were, "what if somebody starts murdering?" it doesn't lay the necessary foundations for a contradiction because the few (not all) who murder can be thought of as acting immorally. The moment everybody starts murdering, it means life no longer has value and a contradiction surfaces. This is just my opinion by the way.
I forgot to say about the categorical imperative in relation to stealing. If it was taken to a universal point of view it would lead to a conclusion of an end to property and private possessions. That is interesting. We might usher in the world with no possessions suggested by John Lennon's, 'Imagine'.
Quoting Jack Cummins
My feeling is that it would lead to a breakdown in the structure of the family. That would be a concern, and a contradiction, if you thought family was an essential element of society.
Quoting TheMadFool
It works for me.
Part of, yes. Choosing between two outcomes reduces to cognizing a relation between means and ends. Fishing, say, with worms gives one possible outcome, fishing with lures gives another possible outcome. This part of our reason is purely theoretical, indicating the outcomes are not actually within our control. And yes, we are not restricted in our choice of bait, but we also have no promise of success in fishing.
The other part of our reason is the purely practical, in which the ends are given necessarily from the means, which is the ground of the c.i. itself, re: “act only....”. Here, we have no choice in our actions, but we have splendid success in our morality.
—————
Quoting Brett
We are not free, nothing makes us free, and this has nothing whatsoever to do with animals. I find no profit in comparing my inner workings to a cow’s, and question those that do. I’ve found them to be terrible philosophers.
—————
Quoting Brett
We make moral choices because our very nature imbues us with moral agency, plain and simple.
We make wrong moral choices because we, as humans, are susceptible to a plethora of opposing interests, desires, wants and needs.
Commands of reason inform as to what an act ought to be, but has no power to force the act to be done.
————-
Quoting Brett
Cultures have changed, individual human members of cultures have not. There has been no significant human evolutionary changes in the mere 250 years or so, since the Enlightenment and with it, Kantian moral philosophy. No moral disparity between ripping off a farmer’s wife over a couple potatoes then, or ripping off a kid over an x-box now, nor between paying yourself for the wife’s potatoes and helping the proverbial lil’ ol’ lady cross Broadway in midtown.
One shouldn’t conflate the moral with the ethical.
Really? I didn't expect that! Great! I would've liked to hear your side of the story though.
You say that the categorical imperative in the instance of the choice not to have sexual
relationships but not marriage would result in the end of the family. That is true, but I am not trying to frame it as an abstract question but a real way in which people have made choices. Therefore, I was suggested that it is far more important to consider than the option of same sex marriage which is far less common.
You say that you accept the Madfool's opinion but he has voiced a number of points, so I am unclear what is it is exactly that you agree with.
I still do not understand your concern about ideology over morality . If anything I would say that the possible problem with ideology over morality is that it is abstract and avoids details and particulars.
But, my own view of the weakness of the idea of the categorical imperative is that it is too abstract and avoids the particulars. Life comes with variable details which sometimes calls for looking at the exceptions to the rule. And I am thinking in terms of ends, more than means.The categorical imperative can be a yardstick but only one measure for viewing dilemmas in the personal and social sphere.
In terms of your insistence on the question of morality or ideology I would say that the term morality seems to be too personal and the term ideology as too impersonal. I think that the more all-encompassing term for weighing up the personal and the universal, and the tensions between the two is the term ethics.
My understanding of the CI is "do any action if and only if you think everyone in the world would not disbenefit from it, even if all and everyone did the same action."
Please agree with me if you find my quote acceptable, or true. If this is not acceptable, and not true, please respond with your working definition of CI written in your response here.
The distinction between morals and ethics is ill-conceived. They are both one in the same thing.
The two terms morals and ethics are sometimes interchangeable but I think the first one is used more to convey a personal or system of conduct. The term ethics s not different outrightly but has a subtlety less judgemental stance. So, ethics is often preferred in discussions about social issues, looking at the various angles of view in a critical way.
Kant doesn't talk about benefits or disbenefits when establishing the groundwork for the CI. And it's also important to consider that the CI is not a tool to judge outward actions.
There are several layers to analysis within the CI. The question of whether a maxim includes an implicit or explicit contradiction, i.e. whether it can theoretically be universalised, and the question of whether you would want it to be universalised.
Only the second part is directly reminiscent of the golden rule, and the conceptual basis is different.
I agree with you that Kant is asking about universalisation he is looking about inward aspects of morality. He says that the person committing an act needs to ask, 'Canst thou also will that thy maxim should be a universal law.' Here, he is looking at the importance of the intention of the act from the point of the person committing it. The examples he gives to illustrate his argument are promises and lying.
I struggled through the 'Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals' at an earlier stage in my life and it is extremely difficult, especially as Kant made more than one formulation of his thought. He was coming from within the Christian tradition but attempting to build up a system of reason, which he spoke of as 'a priori' logic. In his other book he uses this logic as a theory of knowledge of God.
It is easy to take Kant's system of thought out of context and I do believe that the originator of this thread used the term in a very vague sense in an initial discussion about gay marriage. It is possible to blend ideas but it is important to understand the original content. As such, the whole Kantian tradition is about the issue of duty and it was in contradiction to this that the whole utilitarian tradition, especially John Stuart Mill developed an emphasis on the importance of consequences.
It is perhaps hard for us in the present age to conceive of a perspective of moral thought based on duty alone. Nevertheless, the real understanding of the Kantian system of thought is based on duty and intention and whereas when are considering the outer consequences of action we are looking through the eyes of the utilitarian perspective which came later. It would be interesting if Kant himself had been able to dialogue with the utilitarians directly.
But unfortunately it is us who have to juggle the Kantian and utilitarianism perspectives for ourselves.
This somehow expresses a disagreement of how I worded CI.
But... but, you refrained from actually giving your wording of it.
This is not acceptable. As long as we can't agree what CI says, we can't agree whether it differs from, or agrees to, the golden rule.
TheMadFool came up with a definition or wording of CI, and he quotes Jack Cummings as agreed to the following:
Quoting TheMadFool
I am not willing to answer the charge that the golden rule is different from the CI, unless we have complete buy in to some wording of CI. I have seen so far two: mine and this, by TheMadFool.
If I take either one as THE commonly accpeted version, and build an argument, then others may say "oh, I did not agree to that definition; your argument, God must be atheist, is invalid, because it assumes I took the quote as accepted, which I did actually not."
This non-agreement of what CI ACTUALLY is, makes the comparison impossible to validate.
Therefore anyone's validation and invalidation is warranted, and we are at the same spot as before the demand to agree on a consensus of what CI means ws made.
But I see that the participants already found the crux why Kant's Categorical Imperative is lame in today's world and in any world, in which the sentient units are diploid creatures.
This is encouraging.
Can't we just use the most common definition?
Quoting creativesoul
I don’t agree with you there, but I’m not sure it’s worth it to prove myself right, or you to prove me wrong, in relation to the OP. It’s enough that we agree that we are moral. Assuming you agree with that.
Quoting Mww
Quoting Mww
So what determines the action?
Quoting Mww
I agree that we are imbued with moral agency, but that does not give us the answer to a moral dilemma, does it? Don’t you think we have to choose to be moral?
Quoting Mww
Which we have to choose from. Or not. We can even abdicate any responsibility if we choose to.
Quoting TheMadFool
Part of my problem with C.I. was in defining, among my many thoughts, a way of clarifying a C.I. So having the idea of a contradiction works for me as a sort of formula I can apply. Sometimes it seems to be elusive in applying Kant’s formulations.
Quoting Jack Cummins
I know many see ethics and morals as synonymous, and use them that way. But I see ethics as the foundation of morals. We evolved into ethical creatures (another discussion altogether).
“ I propose that the capacity for ethics is a necessary attribute of human nature, whereas moral codes are products of cultural evolution.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK210003/
Quoting Jack Cummins
I had viewed a moral action and an ideological action as two different things. The moral action was rooted in our sense of ethics, the ideological action rooted in ideas about who we are. A moral act is not carried out with a thought about who we are, who we might become. It is not a means but an end. Ideology is an idea about who we are and what we might be, even who we should be. It is also cultural and varies from culture to culture.
So ideological actions are not necessarily, maybe never, moral. Even though we are moral creatures those morals can take slightly different forms according to them culture. Then they become maxims for that particular culture. So the morals now serve the ideology instead of the other way around.
So then any action taken ideologically is not the same as one that is moral, in the sense of C.I. If one is saying “it’s the right thing to do” in relation to any issue then it seems to me it’s an ideological statement.
In the way which you speak of ideology you could view ideology and the Kantian system of view.
However, I would say that in a consideration of ethical issues the consideration of the universal application of principles is still one that can be applied with caution. For example, getting back to your original query about gay marriage you could ask what would happen if everyone did this, but it is still worth considering that it is highly unlikely that everyone will want a gay marriage. But if we consider specific consequences we are taking the categorical imperative out of its original context.
In the twentieth century we are in the predicament of having centuries of thinkers and writings. This gives us plenty of scope but when we draw upon them it is worth being aware of the original arguments in full and the true historical context. Of course, this could be a whole lifetime of reading. As it is, we still have to think for ourselves in making ethical decisions.
I hope that you are finding the thread discussion content useful generally even if we all seem to be going round in circles, but Kant's ideas are complex, so by initiating one of his main ideas a lot of heated debate was likely to be generated.
Quoting Jack Cummins
If you’re suggesting that the Kantian system could be viewed as an ideology then I would agree. In terms of the C.I. it’s a way of addressing a problem, which is, what actions have moral worth? Of course if one finds nothing in Kant then all bets are off.
I come here these days with a specific purpose, which is to test some of my thoughts and find some redirection. Since putting up the OP I’ve gone back to some reading that has cleared a bit of a path for me.
It may be an indication of the complex world we now live in, and my thoughts about culture and morals and ideology are about that, and that the C.I. may not be good enough to help with the times we live in and how we live in it.
Edit: just on your comment about historical context: I’m guessing that Kant’s knowledge of the world and different cultures would have been very narrow and Eurocentric.
Circumstance, usually. And judgement with respect to whatever the circumstance happens to be. Action itself is a posteriori, that is, empirically given as manifest in the world. Morality, taken as a fundamental condition of human nature, does not concern itself with the action, but only with the pure a priori principles to which an action must accord necessarily, in order to claim moral worth for itself.
Only a philosopher examines morality from a metaphysical point of view. Everydayman has no use for such understandings, he being capable of navigating the world without ever questioning exactly how he does it. He may well feel good or bad over something he’s done, but without having the reasons for the source and thereby the construction of those feelings. But under the same circumstance next time, should he do something differently such that the feeling from that action is different, he will recognize that there must actually be reasons, and from differences may then interrogate himself as to their source and construction.
————-
Quoting Brett
No, we cannot. Reason belongs to us necessarily, so whether we admit it or not, we are intrinsically responsible for ourselves in toto, for the excruciatingly simple principle that says reason is itself responsible for every single thing we do. We may very well abdicate that which reason demands, but we cannot deny the responsibility for failing to satisfy such demand. It is impossible, after all, to will that which is beyond the ability to obtain, that being nothing but a mere wish.
So what you’re saying is we’re only free to be human. I’d go along with that.
Okay, let's work with this. It's great.
Please note: I use the F word. It is not to be rude or obnoxious. It is not to incite offence. It is for the purpose of simplicity of communication. It is also to the point and excludes the need of careful circumdescriptions. Please don't be offended. I'll use the abbreviation "F" for the F-word, to avoid stress and undue shock or offence to good taste.
1. Categorical Imperative (CI) is the golden rule (GR). Not the complete equivalent, but it has the same application in the example below. I will show how both break down in an instance of application, thereby making them fail the claim that they are both universal laws.
1.1. if the person acts agains the golden rule, it acts in ways that he does not want to be acted upon himself.
1.2. CI: If it is an act he does not want to be done to himself, then he is not advocating that everyone should do this. Therefore it breaches the part "It should become universal law".
1.3. Because of 1.1. and 1.2., I maintain that both CI and the GR say the same: only do things that you want others to do.
2. How the GR and CI both break down in one application, therefore they can't be universal.
2.1. Heterosexual males like to F others.
2.2. Heterosexual males don't want to be Fd.
2.3. A heterosexual male will be welcome by a heterosexual female to F her, once the circumstances are favourable.
2.4. A heterosexual male will reject to be Fd by anyone.
2.5.1 Therefore a heterosexual male will act in a way that he does not want to become universal law (both not F and not get Fd)
2.5.2. A heterosexual male will not want to be done to as he does to others.
3. Therefore both the CI and the GR fail in one instance of application
4. Therefore they both (The CI and the GR) fail as universally applicable moral codes.
The GR should never be claimed, logically, as a universal law; a rule is never a law nor universal. It isn’t, for good reason, called the golden law.
The c.i. Is never claimed to be a universal law, at least by its author. It is, in fact because it’s in print, proved impossible that it could ever be a universal law. We are only to act as if our will could create such law for EVERY one.
Quoting Mww
We agreed that the CI is to be understood as quoted. I said I will only make arguments on an established description on it that everyone accepts. I accepted the quote's content, and I declared that I will only argue and accept argumengs while considering this meaning to be true as quoted. If you think this is not a good description, then I can't answer you, as I am not willing to go through the tedious process of agreeing on what we actually are arguming about.
The first quote is a universal law. It is expressed by the word "only". If "only" were not there, but the word "sometime", then your opinion would be compatible with this quote.
Quoting Mww
The wording of the GR was not agreed upon. So I won't even touch it. I think it goes like this: "You should only do things to others that you are willing to accept others to do to you." Again, ACCORDING TO THIS WORDING, it's a law; because, again, of the word "only".
In my understanding the difference between a rule and a law is that laws don't tolerate exceptions, whereas rules do. Accroding to THIS wording above,the GR is a law, not a rule. You may devise a different wording for it as you please; I go by the above. And the above wording indicates it's a law.