|
| Thread: Things you Kant do. | |
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
posted June 24, 2002 04:59 PM |
bonus applied. |
|
Things you Kant do.
These types of threads always seem to generate the most responses, and I'm trying to do my part to keep Heroes Community alive and kicking, so here goes...
First, a disclaimer : It's been 3 years since I took a philosphy class. If I misquote somebody, please correct me, but don't yell at me...
Most of the philosphy type discussions have been along the lines of "is there a god/spirit world," but (at least from what I remember) none have dealt with straight up ethics.
The big question I want to babble about is : Is there a set of rules or maxims that can solve most/all of our moral questions in a way that coincides with what we generally recognize as "right?"
Kant had the categorical imperative, which if I can paraphrase correctly is :
1. only do the acts which should be universal actions (ie - don't do it if you'd be upset if everybody else did the same thing)
2. Don't treat people like mere means, but as ends in and of themselves
3. The "Kingdom of Ends Rule" which I really don't understand, but I think it's just a restatement of number 1.
I think there's a lot to be said about this philosophy, the problem is I don't pretend to be able to comprehend Kant, but I think maxim #2 is getting pretty close to the heart of the matter.
Jeremy Bentham (whose corpse you can still view at UCL!) is generally considered the founder of Utilitarianism which states that actions should be chosen so as to maximize happiness in the world/universe. There are two main objections to this - one is how do we calculate "utility" objectively (or, as a corrolary, if action 1 guarantees +10 happiness, but action 2 has a 50% chance of +1000 happiness and a 50% chance of -500 happiness, which do you choose?) and the "hobo in the hospital" argument of harvesting ne'er do wells for their organs if nobody would miss them anyway. Some people try to answer this with "rule utilitarianism" which says that you should make rules that tend to maximize happiness, but this tends to degenerate into normal utilitarianism. I personally find utilitarianism unsatisfying because, as Kant would view it, it's treating people like objects or currency (in other words, like mere means).
Then, of course, there's the "because it's in the Bible(or other religious text)" school of thought. I don't like this, personally, because it doesn't really seem to address the WHY of morality beyond just avoiding punishment or trying to get the reward of heaven.
Unfortunately, the closest I can get to any sort of rule/guideline is similar to the Supreme Court's (of the US, that is) definition of pornography, "I know it when I see it."
Anyway, anybody who can correct my amaturish attempts at explaining the vast field of ethics and can make input, please do so.
|
|
DonGio
Promising
Famous Hero
of Clear Water Mountain Clan
|
|
posted June 25, 2002 02:40 PM |
|
|
I'm not exactly sure what you are saying or asking here, but I commend the attempt at a sensible thread in these nonsense times.
Kant is my favourite philosopher as well, but it's hard to see how his philosophy can work if all have not understood and applied it to their respective lives.
And, as many wiser men has pointed out before me, it has weaknesses. His postulates (not sure if that's the correct word, trying to translate from norwegian here) can be viewed as weaknesses. To have certain sentences that you cannot explain, but demand that people take for granted, reminds me in some ways of an ad-hoc hypothesis.
His ethics are also fitting the category of duty ethics. In Kant's philosophy, there's a distinct difference between morally good and legal actions. An action is only morally good when initiated by the law (in this case: the categorical imperative), because that is the only way, according to Kant, that you can be sure that your actions are "right". "Right" or "correct" actions motivated by something else than the law are legal, they are not wrong or sinful, but they are not morally defensible actions either.
It is also important to know that Kant's categorical imperative is not one sentence he came up with. He devised and constructed this in numerous ways, to make sure he covered all aspects. When studying philosophy "shallowly", not specializing yourself with one particular thinker or school, you'll often be confronted with merely one or two of these, and it can appear that this is all.
Kant also viewed the human being as autonomous (again, just guessing at words, meaning that humans make their own laws, so to speak. He does not, however, encourage anarchy and self-indulgence. Just the opposite. This is an extremely optimistic view of human nature, and should be seen in context to the pessimists Kant was reacting to.
So there, don't know if this cleared things up or what, this just came out in a jumble, not really sure what I'm trying to say, make what you will of it.
Think well
DonGio
____________
There are 10 types of people: Those who read binary, and those who don't.
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted June 25, 2002 03:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I'm not exactly sure what you are saying or asking here, but I commend the attempt at a sensible thread in these nonsense times.
Okay, to clarify : Is there a set of rules or maxims that we SHOULD live by?
I was just babbling about some of the attempted answers to provide a background.
I know that Kant is much more complex and in depth than what I put down, but, like I said, I never was able to study him in depth, and what little I did was several years ago. Thanks for clearing some of the details up.
|
|
Cat
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Gonna Get Dirrty...
|
|
posted June 25, 2002 04:31 PM |
|
Edited By: Cat on 25 Jun 2002
|
"Jeremy Bentham (whose corpse you can still view at UCL!) is generally considered the founder of Utilitarianism which states that actions should be chosen so as to maximize happiness in the world/universe. There are two main objections to this - one is how do we calculate "utility" objectively (or, as a corrolary, if action 1 guarantees +10 happiness, but action 2 has a 50% chance of +1000 happiness and a 50% chance of -500 happiness, which do you choose?) and the "hobo in the hospital" argument of harvesting ne'er do wells for their organs if nobody would miss them anyway. Some people try to answer this with "rule utilitarianism" which says that you should make rules that tend to maximize happiness, but this tends to degenerate into normal utilitarianism. I personally find utilitarianism unsatisfying because, as Kant would view it, it's treating people like objects or currency (in other words, like mere means)."
Bentham was contradicted in the 1800's by John Stuart Mill (son of Bentham's colege James Mill). Mill advocated a "negative freedom" (or "freedom from") rather than "positive freedom" according to Alan Ryan, a 20th centuary philosopher. "Positive Freedom" (freedom to) is the setup we have here.. Distinct Rules governed and enforced by a select few. "Negative Freedom" has no distinct rules, no real laws, and when badly done can lead to chaos.
In "On Liberty" Mill says that his object is
"to defend one very simple principal, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, wheather the means used be legal penalties, or he moral coercion of public opinion"
Mill's utilitarianism ("The greatest happiness for the greatest number of people") can be found, he believe's, through Liberty (or "freedom").
In his "One Simple Principal" Mill shows how this can be done.
"That principal is that the sole end for which mankind are warrented, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully excercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good is not sufficient warrant"
Mill goes on to detail his harm principal- that harm to yourself, and only yourself is fine. but to do anything that will harm or distress others is fit to be punished. The distinction between self-regarding and other regarding actions is discussed at length, but eventually appears to be negligable- the majority of what you do will affect others in some way.
To use an example:- if a man goes out and gets drunk, this is fine. But, if by getting drunk he infringes on the liberty of others (ie, goes home to beat his wife, or spends the money for food for his children on drink) then he must be punished by the law.
Mill, unlike Bentham does treat people as individuals and not just the "means" which makes general untilitarianism unsatisfactory to Kant. Mill in fact advocates individual genius as a key factor in the progression of man, and sights the "tyranny of the majority" as one of the major evils.. in other words, societies rejection of individual genius because it is different.
Mill believe's that life lived by his "One simple principal" (which isn't that simple, I left a lot out) will allow freedom for all and his freedom in itself will curb negative actions by it's very nature.
In layman's terms:- "Do what you want so long as you don't upset anybody else".
____________
 Diwethaf Gloau Sylw y Gymreag
http://aozos.com/phpBB2/index.php
|
|
Sir_Elric
Responsible
Famous Hero
Having a bad hair day.
|
posted June 25, 2002 07:02 PM |
|
|
Utilitarianism
Now there's a good word for jumble.
Seriously though your post was a little too deep for me, incisive and enlightening as it were.
To pick up on one part of your post though regarding the bible, not that I've read more than a few pages or ever intend to read anymore than that.
I've always looked upon the bible as someones personal journal of do's and don'ts that over eons has been altered, distorted and falsified into structed rules and stories for the masses of people who can't think for themselves.
Now before the religious sect slam me for sacrilege.
This is only my opinion and I do believe in God.
I just don't need someone to tell me how to believe.
____________
Neverwinter Nights - "City of Melnibone"
Direct connect - ausnwn2.dyndns.org:5121
|
|
Snogard
Known Hero
customised
|
posted June 26, 2002 04:41 AM |
|
|
Quote:
In layman's terms:- "Do what you want so long as you don't upset anybody else".
I've not understand completely what Mill is trying to say, but
Is it possible to "do what you want" (or as a matter of fact, anything at all) and not upset ANYBODY at all? Is it at all possible to cause absolutely "no upset" as long as one still possesses the idea of "you" and "me"?
____________
Seize The Day.
|
|
The_Pawn
Hired Hero
Limpid Loser
|
|
posted June 26, 2002 06:35 AM |
|
|
Kant of worms
hmmmmmm
refreshing thread...i'm used to seeing things in the forum that are meant to be deep but are not well informed or cited.
discussing kant is a tough one. he has shaped a world view which countless others have taken for their own...
maxims are also difficult...
concerning ethics or morals we are fist tied here. I can not say that my morals are higher or more pure than any other's. appeal to authority (i.e:religion) is a pitfall in basic logic. there are several appeals and whichever you use does not add merit to your point. it actually discredits it.
sir elric...nice post...short and precise
geez i wish i had more time to type right now...
ill save this thread link and come back later
oh and my favorite personal maxim is:
"Do not focus on the good old days,
But on the bad new ones."
-Brecht
later all
____________
P...K4
|
|
Avallach
Hired Hero
Disputo ergo sum.
|
|
posted June 26, 2002 10:30 AM |
|
|
Rule based ethics run into problems when rules come into conflict with either each other, or with our general sense of right and wrong. Take for example the rule 'do not lie'. The deontologist would say that lying is morally wrong, quite apart from whatever good/harm it may cause, and that by lying in any circumstance a person is acting imorally. But consider the following scenario: You live in Nazi Germany and are harbouring a family of Jews in your home. A Nazi officer comes to your home one day searching for Jews, and asks if there is anyone other than your family living there. You can answer truthfully, knowing that the Jews will likely be killed, or deceitfully. Most people would agree that it would be morally right to lie in this situation, but how does this fit in with deontological ethics? One answer is to create a hierarchy of rules, so that if they come into conflict you choose the rule that is higher on the scale. But I think it tends to place the whole argument on a rather shaky foundation.
As for what you termed the 'because it's in the Bible' view, I think you underestimate this. It is not about reward/punisment, but about the existence of an Absolute. It is in the existence of some objective external moral source that 'morality' has meaning. But if all there is is us, thrown up at random by a meaningless universe, what foundation is there for any code of ethics? The law? But most people would say that law, such as that which permits slavery, can be wrong. So is there some higher law? Our consciences? But if our conscience is the product of evolution, if our sense of right and wrong is purely the outworking of a chain of random mutations that could just have easily gone another way, what value has it? Should we not say with the Marquis de Sade that 'what is, is right', and do as we please? And yet, for the most part, we do not. But why?
____________
"Death slew him not, but he made death his ladder to the skies"
- Edmund Spenser, on the death of Philip Sidney
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted June 26, 2002 04:35 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Rule based ethics run into problems when rules come into conflict with either each other, or with our general sense of right and wrong.
So true. I'm just wondering if anybody has formulated a set of rules that is general and flexible enough not to run into rule x vs. rule y problems and yet specific enough to actually give guidance. Of course, the answer is : of course not, if somebody had, we'd all be drinking ambrosia by now, but I was curious as to what people thought came closest.
Quote:
As for what you termed the 'because it's in the Bible' view, I think you underestimate this. It is not about reward/punisment, but about the existence of an Absolute. It is in the existence of some objective external moral source that 'morality' has meaning. But if all there is is us, thrown up at random by a meaningless universe, what foundation is there for any code of ethics? The law? But most people would say that law, such as that which permits slavery, can be wrong. So is there some higher law? Our consciences?
Well, if you want rules contradicting eachother, you need to look no further than the bible. Thou shalt not kill. Except for philistines. And the first born sons of Egypt. But I digress. I don't think the following the Bible really answers the question of what the external moral source is.
Choice A: God is the source of morals. If God is the source of morals, I really fail to see how following the moral path is anything but reward/punishment min/maxing.
Choice B: Morals are fundamentally above God. In this case, you're not really following God or the Bible, but something else entirely, which sort of makes God and the Bible beside the point.
The disclaimer to this last statement, of course, is if being religious causes somebody to be kind to others and give to charity and sing duets in the forest with Mr. Bluebird, than more power to ya for using the Bible as a source of moral guidance. If however, it causes you to bomb a family planning clinic or beat up homosexuals, then maybe you should get a new moral code.
|
|
Cat
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Gonna Get Dirrty...
|
|
posted June 26, 2002 04:37 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
In layman's terms:- "Do what you want so long as you don't upset anybody else".
I've not understand completely what Mill is trying to say, but
Is it possible to "do what you want" (or as a matter of fact, anything at all) and not upset ANYBODY at all?
That is a problem Mill acknowledges in his description of self-regarding and other regrding actions. In short, not really.
____________
Diwethaf Gloau Sylw y Gymreag
http://aozos.com/phpBB2/index.php
|
|
Snogard
Known Hero
customised
|
|
posted June 27, 2002 03:41 AM |
|
|
Quote:
So true. I'm just wondering if anybody has formulated a set of rules that is general and flexible enough not to run into rule x vs. rule y problems and yet specific enough to actually give guidance. Of course, the answer is : of course not, if somebody had, we'd all be drinking ambrosia by now, but I was curious as to what people thought came closest.
Well, if you want rules contradicting eachother, you need to look no further than the bible. Thou shalt not kill. Except for philistines. And the first born sons of Egypt. But I digress. I don't think the following the Bible really answers the question of what the external moral source is.
Choice A: God is the source of morals. If God is the source of morals, I really fail to see how following the moral path is anything but reward/punishment min/maxing.
Choice B: Morals are fundamentally above God. In this case, you're not really following God or the Bible, but something else entirely, which sort of makes God and the Bible beside the point.
The disclaimer to this last statement, of course, is if being religious causes somebody to be kind to others and give to charity and sing duets in the forest with Mr. Bluebird, than more power to ya for using the Bible as a source of moral guidance. If however, it causes you to bomb a family planning clinic or beat up homosexuals, then maybe you should get a new moral code.
I think the formulation of such rules should based first on the proving of the existance of "The Absolute". Hence, (IMO) is not answering the question of "What is The Absolute" more important? Without that, all "rights" and "wrongs" would be relative, or should I say "subjective". What is the ULTIMATE reason for somebody to be kind to others or to beat up homosexuals... yes, or to give to charity or to bomb a family? If we can go beyond the idea of "me" (hence, and "you"), a RULE may be formed, but I'm not sure if we can...
CAT:
Quote:
That is a problem Mill acknowledges in his description of self-regarding and other regrding actions. In short, not really.
I suppose so. In fact, I'm tempted to think that standing only at one's viewpoint, there is ultimately only "self-regarding actions"; all "other regarding actions" eventually comes to "self".
____________
Seize The Day.
|
|
XeRo13g
Tavern Dweller
Map Creator
|
posted June 27, 2002 01:45 PM |
|
|
Heroes 3 Maps-DnD style
Hello to all !
Some friend talk me into this...
I would like some good Heroes 3 players to play one of my maps and sent me comments.
Most of the maps created by me take 500-1000 hours of work and being tested more than 30 times.
I also would like to play someone elses maps but for god sake NOT the 3DO map style...Its too boring !!+I dislike walking on an empty grass field for 3 turns 
If anyone is bored to play maps like defeat all heroes and capture all towns...please send me an E-mail and i will send you a better one  )
ps. All Heroes players who know me, think i am da best...Gimme your opinion
____________
XeRo13g-Heroes3 Map Creator
|
|
Avallach
Hired Hero
Disputo ergo sum.
|
|
posted June 28, 2002 03:21 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Well, if you want rules contradicting eachother, you need to look no further than the bible. Thou shalt not kill. Except for philistines. And the first born sons of Egypt.
Actually, 'kill' there would be more accurately translated as 'murder'. But I'd say in any case that Biblical ethics are not deontological, and indeed that's where the Pharisees and such got it wrong.
Quote:
But I digress. I don't think the following the Bible really answers the question of what the external moral source is.
Choice A: God is the source of morals. If God is the source of morals, I really fail to see how following the moral path is anything but reward/punishment min/maxing.
Choice B: Morals are fundamentally above God. In this case, you're not really following God or the Bible, but something else entirely, which sort of makes God and the Bible beside the point.
*Nods* I'm familiar with the argument, and would say that neither A nor B is strictly the case. The answer, simply, is that 'God is good', and that God could not be other than he is. Goodness is not some concept above God that he conforms to, but nor is his nature arbitrary. To the question of 'what if God was evil, would evil then be right?', I would borrow the Japanese word 'mu' that means 'unask the question', because the premise is unsound. In Christian theology as I understand it, the concept of an evil (by the existing standards) God would be something of an oxymoron. To hypothesise such would make no more sense than hypothesising for example a square circle.
As for the reward/punishment argument specifically, imagine that neither reward or punishment exist. This would not alter the existence of a moral absolute, only some people's motivation for following it, perhaps. But it would still be right to do so.
Quote:
The disclaimer to this last statement, of course, is if being religious causes somebody to be kind to others and give to charity and sing duets in the forest with Mr. Bluebird, than more power to ya for using the Bible as a source of moral guidance. If however, it causes you to bomb a family planning clinic or beat up homosexuals, then maybe you should get a new moral code.
But I would ask again, without some external authority, what foundation do we have for distinguishing between good and evil? Why is charity good? Why is destroying property and beating people wrong? Certainly, most of us feel that this is the case, and might even say that we intuitively know it. But what of those who feel otherwise? I'll finish with a quote that sums up the problem for non-theistic eithics quite well, I think:
Quote:
"I cannot see how to refute the arguments for the subjectivity of ethical values, but I find myself incapable of believing that all that is wrong with wanton cruelty is that I don't like it."
- Bertrand Russell
____________
"Death slew him not, but he made death his ladder to the skies"
- Edmund Spenser, on the death of Philip Sidney
|
| |
|
|
