Tuesday, January 23, 2007

when things are right, don't forget to write!

‘Two things fill the mind with ever increasing awe -- the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me.’ -Immanuel Kant

Kant had a good point. For the most part, Kant was a theist. It's very difficult to be a theist and still ask all of those 'what if' questions. Still, Kant never discounted the transcendental. No ontological study of life can be complete without the the presence of a psychotic state of mind. Throughout time, the majority of our ethics and morals were rooted from the bible. Let's compare Kant's categorical imperative to the Golden Rule.

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."


Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them.

Those two sentences, although worded differently, mean pretty much the same. One was pulled from the Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals and the other of course from the Bible. The bible quote can be taken quite a bit more loosely than the actual categorical imperative. This isn't the first time that these two likenesses have been compared. Another issue with the bible is that although it is the word of God, it has been translated countless times throughout history. I've seen the Golden Rule worded in so many different permutations. But we're smart enough to read through semantics, right? The essence or heart of an idea should never get lost in translation.

Now onto the very simple question. What is right? Can it be explained outside of any human conceptual framework? (i.e religion or science) Is right a feeling that we get that we put into words OR is it words that we read that get put into feelings?

Innate AND acquired? The only way to find the answer is through WRONG methods of scientific research i.e, test tube babies and rearing children in different controlled moral or immoral environments. Sometimes the only way to find right is to be wrong. You can't know day without having night. I don't think I would ever condone this type of research, but i'm just running with ideas here. If we could find someone who would 'will that it become a universal law' then we've got a game plan. However, very rarely will you find a martyr in the world of science.

2 comments:

Jonkelly's said...

Kant is used to give ontology to logic so people think in relation to the thing and not to their knowledge of actuality and existence. His is an ego centered philosophy as the quote you gave reveals. It is then assumed and no the content of thought as that is what can not be assumed.

Dave said...

so basically Kant waters down 'existence' in order to simplify life? cause if we based our entire set of morals on natural order, not enough people would follow?

thanks for your insight, Jon.