Ethics: Kant and the categorical imperative.

[UserGoogol]

Yeah, but what can you replace it with? I like Kant's ethics because I can't do any better. Utilitarianism doesn't work either.

Sure it does.

What does it mean for something to be good? Something is good if it is preferable. But preferable to whom? Non-sentinent beings (such as rocks, plants, and paperweights) have no opinion on the issue, so they can be excluded from consideration. Then we should consider sentinent beings. What does it mean to be a sentinent being, as opposed to being more specifically a person or a human? Well, they are beings with mental states. Furthermore, the rest of reality outside of their mental states is somewhat epistemologically seperated from them; they can only "know" something if it reaches them through sensation. Thus, the only things which a sentinent being really ought to care about are its mental states, because the rest of reality is filtered to it through those. Thus, what is good to a particular sentinent being are preferable mental states. Or in other words, happiness. Furthermore, things outside of their minds are preferable only to the degree that they lead to preferable mental states. Thus more generally, "preferable mental states" (happiness) are ultimately the only things worth considering when deciding what is preferable. (good)

Of course, this only leads to hedonistic consequentialism, but not utilitarianism per se. The "obvious" conclusion in fact would be hedonistic egoism. People should follow this logic to go on to do things such as to maximize their own happiness, because other people's happiness only effects them in so far as it makes them happy or unhappy.

But there are problems with egoism. Even though egoistic behavior should maximize one's own personal happiness, other people being egoist tends to lead to unhappiness. Therefore logically, a sensible egoist will be motivated to try to get other people to not be egoist. More troublingly, everyone being egoist can lead to unhappiness for everyone. (For example the prisoner's dillema.)

I admit that there is a certain amount of handwaving involved in this next step, but I think that utilitarianism (or something very similar to it) is the only decent solution to the paradox of egoism. The "negotiating egoist" will try to promote an system which will give the advantage to him as often as possible. But he can't just create a system which says "act in such a way as to maximize my interests," because nobody would have any interest in adopting it. (Unless he forces it on people, but that's an unstable solution at best.) Thus, he should also design his moral system so that it is in the interest of other people; of the average person. Utilitarianism seems to get the job done best, although I admit there are other possibilities.

But even if I have trouble getting all the way to utilitarianism, deontology just doesn't make sense to me. What's the point in being logically self-consistant if it doesn't lead to happiness? Happiness has a point: it's fun. But being logically self-consistant seems kind of pointless in-of-itself. It's one thing to be logical in your beliefs, you have an interest in believing true things and not false things and logic is a good way to ensure that. But to be logical in your actions just seems pointless.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

OK...I'm not an ethicist and this thread was posted merely as a demonstration that there is such a thing as a relevant non-empirical question.

For the record, Kant is trying to prove that it is rational to behave morally and irrational to behave immorally, and he is also trying to justify it "a priori". Both are worthy goals, IMO.

 

[DreadNiK]

It is irrational to be immoral.

But that is plainly and simply wrong, at least in the sense that it is not always true.

 

[JamesDillon]

For the record, Kant is trying to prove that it is rational to behave morally and irrational to behave immorally, and he is also trying to justify it "a priori". Both are worthy goals, IMO.

Not if they simply can't be accomplished. Kant was all about the a priori knowledge, for reasons largely stemming from a desire to rebut Hume's empirical skepticism, but in the realm of ethics and otherwise, I don't find his efforts generally very persuasive (though as Dennett would say, it was a nice try, and Kant's failures were a greater contribution to human knowledge that most successes). It might be nice to prove that the commonly accepted principles of morality can be deduced a priori from the application of pure reason, and it would, as Kant well knew, give morality an imperative force that it otherwise arguably lacks. The problem is, there just isn't much of an argument to be made that this is the case.

 

[DreadNiK]

OK...I'm not an ethicist and this thread was posted merely as a demonstration that there is such a thing as a relevant non-empirical question.

State the question clearly and we'll see if it is completely non-empirical.

Also, this might not be for my benefit, but I believe I requested a non-empirical problem, not question. There is a distinction.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

State the question clearly and we'll see if it is completely non-empirical.

The question was whether Kant's categorical imperative was any good.

Also, this might not be for my benefit, but I believe I requested a non-empirical problem, not question. There is a distinction.

It is a question about morality and moral problems are amongst the most important problems human beings face. It's answer has an impact on reality. Our inability to answer it also has an impact on reality.

 

[Dr Adequate]

OK...I'm not an ethicist and this thread was posted merely as a demonstration that there is such a thing as a relevant non-empirical question.

What do you mean by "relevant"?

 

[Dr Adequate]

The question was whether Kant's categorical imperative was any good.

Well, it's certainly not empirical.

If you mean "good" in the moral sense, then we're back talking about ethics.

And no, he hasn't proved it true a priori : this isn't possible.

For the record, Kant is trying to prove that it is rational to behave morally and irrational to behave immorally, and he is also trying to justify it "a priori". Both are worthy goals, IMO.

Squaring the circle might be a worthy goal too ... it's not going to happen.

 

[DreadNiK]

What do you mean by "relevant"?

 

[Dark Jaguar]

Should I go outside? Let's universalise it to see if there are any problems. If everyone goes outside, no one is inside to do all the work. Society falls into disrepair. In fact, it can't be universalized because some people just can't go outside. Therefor it is a contradiction and therefor since it is illogical to universalize it, going outside is immoral.

That basically sums up my major problem here. Okay, I have to be more specific. Like, should I go outside TODAY, which is sunny, because I want to go for a walk? Universalize that and it still can get silly, so let's just make the question more and more specific until it only applies to me in that moment. Universalize it and it only applies to me and suddenly makes sense, so it's the right and moral thing to do to go outside.

...Huuuuh?

Universalization is arbitrary and nonsensical itself.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Should I go outside? Let's universalise it to see if there are any problems. If everyone goes outside, no one is inside to do all the work. Society falls into disrepair.

You haven't applied it properly. The question is "Is it moral that I go outside in the sunshine now, just because I'd like to?" The answer depends on what your other duties are. If your duty is to be at work, then it is immoral to go out in the sun, exactly because if that were Universalised then no work would ever get done. But if it is your day off, or you don't have any work to do, then it doesn't make any difference and you can go out in the sun. What's the problem?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

You haven't applied it properly. The question is "Is it moral that I go outside in the sunshine now, just because I'd like to?" The answer depends on what your other duties are. If your duty is to be at work, then it is immoral to go out in the sun, exactly because if that were Universalised then no work would ever get done. But if it is your day off, or you don't have any work to do, then it doesn't make any difference and you can go out in the sun. What's the problem?

The problem is that Geoff is working backwards from the conclusion he would like to the universaliseable reasoning that justifies it. Anyone can do this to get to all sorts of odd conclusions using Kant.

 

[Dark Jaguar]

Well if I can basically just add all the conditions of the situation I am in specifically, that's all well and good but what good is it? With that in mind "is it all right to lie in this situation right now?", when universalized, no longer leads to language being meaningless because universalizing it only applies to that situation.

So why do I have to apply the concept of "lying" regardless of situation but in the concept of "going outside" I get to apply whatever conditions I like to reach a conclusion I like?

 

[ReFLeX]

Does morality itself even have any a priori characteristics? I think everything I know about morality would turn out to be empirical.

Good discussion here.

 

[RandFan]

Great popcorn thread. [Lurk mode on]

 

[Dark Jaguar]

As far as I'm concerned, morality is merely a result of evolution. One I'd much rather keep and have emotional attachments to for not so emperical reasons, but I face up to it's reality.

But if there's some logical absolute morality (admittedly a compelling concept to me), I'd like to hear it. So far though, every one I've seen makes some major judgement and seems to have some flaw.

In this case, it seems arbitrary from start to finish. From premise through to utilization, it all seems arbitrary. How do I determine the right way to define the situation so I can go from there to universalize it? Is it alright to say "every lie" or "every lie in the situation where lying will protect someone"? Is it alright to say "every instance of going outside" or "every instance of going outside in the instance where doing so does not harm anyone"? What's the difference?

 

[RandFan]

As far as I'm concerned, morality is merely a result of evolution. One I'd much rather keep and have emotional attachments to for not so emperical reasons, but I face up to it's reality.

But if there's some logical absolute morality (admittedly a compelling concept to me), I'd like to hear it. So far though, every one I've seen makes some major judgement and seems to have some flaw.

I hadn't intended to get involved. Oh well. I cannot find any logical absolute morality either.

I agree that morals are the products of evolution. And the reality is that morality is rooted in emotion and feeling and the ability to empathize. Take those things away and there is no need for morality. If you don't care whether you live or die or if you don't experience pain or joy or any of the other sundry feelings then there is no morality.

 

[RandFan]

I cannot find any logical absolute morality either.

In the interest of full disclosure. I did argue at length on this forum that it was possible to craft a narrow absolute moral standard. I'm still mulling that one over. I'm leaning against it at the moment.