Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Do you believe in Kant's philosophy or the rule of ages?


I've always believed that CI was a universally structured philosophy, while GR was an egocentric one. Agree? Disagree?

CI satisfies a certain element of common sense - "Why should I do it if everyone else can't?" But unfortunately, a lot of Kant's principles are based on God and free will, two things which give determinist and agnostics fits.

The Golden Rule also satisfies common sense, and it's pretty universal too. I find it less egocentric and more empathetic, or at least as close to empathetic as any maxim can be.

CI strikes me as pragmatic and mind/reason-centered, w/o regard for the emotional/heart-centered aspects of human interaction. "Do this because if we all did it, this would best promote human welfare." But who decides what is best for human welfare; in what context is CI being applied? A warrior society will likely have a different sense of CI than a farming society.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," on the other hand, is an implicit way of saying, "Everyone be nice to each other." It assumes a universal standard of "Everyone appreciates kindness." Does everyone? An act of kindness I show to a farmer, will that be interpreted as kindness by a warrior? It is less pragmatic, perhaps, and more "higher-reaching" because of the assumed universal standard.

IMO, this thread, in a roundabout way, returns us to the topic of "Morals: Absolute or Relative?" Personally, I think moral relativisim is a self-contradicting fiction. On the other hand, what morals would one claim to be absolute? One could base them on God's Laws, but since God can't be taken as a given, we need another standard.

Perhaps evolution: those moral behaviors which enable a people to thrive long-term are absolute...implying, you can't treat your environment--living/nonliving, human/nonhuman--like crap.

Determining moral absolutes--the best human behaviors--appears to require extreme perspective: the more you can see of the Big Picture, the better position you are in to say This is Right/Wrong.

Yeah, relativism irks the hell out of me.

Of those two, Schopenhauer's is the best...."Harm Nobody, much more help, as much as you can, everybody"

Then again I am a Relativist...so screw them all...

Sounds like Wicca,....Harm nobody"

Originally posted by Mindship


"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," on the other hand, is an implicit way of saying, "Everyone be nice to each other." It assumes a universal standard of "Everyone appreciates kindness." Does everyone? An act of kindness I show to a farmer, will that be interpreted as kindness by a warrior? It is less pragmatic, perhaps, and more "higher-reaching" because of the assumed universal standard.



Continuing on with that thought, what about the 3 situations where GR doesn't work?

Ie: Masochist's?

Originally posted by debbiejo
Sounds like Wicca,....Harm nobody"

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
Continuing on with that thought, what about the 3 situations where GR doesn't work?

Ie: Masochist's?

I would think, you wanna be kind to a masochist, hit 'im. True, I wouldn't wanna be hit, but I do like kindness. "Do unto others..." in the spirit, not in the letter.

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
Continuing on with that thought, what about the 3 situations where GR doesn't work?

Ie: Masochist's?

So a literal situation where the values of the subject pondering the Golden Rule are abnormal? You've solved that one yourself- someone who would apply something like pain and suffering to another being just because they get off on it isn't operating on a rational level anyhow; they're suffering from some sort of chemical imbalance or mental failing. Yes, masochists can be rational- I'm not saying that. However, the masochist who applies some kind of "Everyone is exactly like me" mentality isn't using empathy- he's being a sociopath. The Golden Rule should be applied generally at all times and specifically with discretion.

For example, you always want to aim to not impede on other people's joys just as you would expect them to leave you to yours within reason. However, just because you like Transformers you wouldn't run around forcing people to watch the show. Likewise, if you really got into putting fish hooks in your ass, you wouldn't be running around doing that to others either. The Golden Rule as a maxim is only as effective as the discretion used. Applying it literally would be self-defeating.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
So a literal situation where the values of the subject pondering the Golden Rule are abnormal? You've solved that one yourself- someone who would apply something like pain and suffering to another being just because they get off on it isn't operating on a rational level anyhow; they're suffering from some sort of chemical imbalance or mental failing. Yes, masochists can be rational- I'm not saying that. However, the masochist who applies some kind of "Everyone is exactly like me" mentality isn't using empathy- he's being a sociopath. The Golden Rule should be applied generally at all times and specifically with discretion.

For example, you always want to aim to not impede on other people's joys just as you would expect them to leave you to yours within reason. However, just because you like Transformers you wouldn't run around forcing people to watch the show. Likewise, if you really got into putting fish hooks in your ass, you wouldn't be running around doing that to others either. The Golden Rule as a maxim is only as effective as the discretion used. Applying it literally would be self-defeating.

Hm, that's Kants 2nd Formulation: Using others to promote your happiness with out recognizing their happiness is unmoral. Act in such a way you treat humanity, never as a means, but always as an end.

Yes, and I agree that that does satisfy common sense about morality.

But taking Kant's 2nd imperative as given, we essentially make happiness the ultimate metric, which leads to other ethical dilemmas. Even if we ignore those, there are some instances where you will need to act probabilistically since there is incomplete information about what will make somebody the most happy. What about a smoker who is happier about a cigarette - but you believe that he would be happier in general if he didn't smoke at all?

My personal conclusion is that there are no such thing as ethics - do whatever you damn well please, unless that involves being a political rat bastard.

Philosophers are making morals and ethics more complicated than it has to be. It really is simple: if you do not harm others and you are helpfull and kind then you can't go wrong - it really is universal. If you live your life honestly and purely, you will realise you are living inside absolute truth.