Seeking Limits of Mankind, and Limits of God > Comments on The Disaster of the Categorical Imperative, Explained (Part 1)

Go to Seeking Limits of Mankind, and Limits of GodAdd a commentGo to The Disaster of the Categorical Imperative, Explained (Part 1)

Ref: Happy 4th

Same to you Corbin!  There should be plenty of fireworks to watch on TV.  We used to go watch in person, but the crowds and traffic got to be way too much.  Cheers 

posted by GoldenMean on July 2, 2018 at 11:19 AM | link to this | reply

Hope you have a Happy 4th...whenever it's finally celebrated!

posted by Corbin_Dallas on July 2, 2018 at 5:18 AM | link to this | reply

Kabu

Well,  you and I decide, along with everyone else. And whoever we can convince to join us.  It is truly a moral democracy,  but I think evil is winning most of the elections.  Cheers

posted by GoldenMean on June 30, 2018 at 2:24 AM | link to this | reply

who decides what is evil, and what was necessary for the greater good!

Evil people must be defeated, good people must be supported, by whatever means are at hand at the time of the conflict……

posted by Kabu on June 29, 2018 at 12:01 PM | link to this | reply

Whew! overwhelming!

posted by M_R_GRAVES on June 27, 2018 at 2:14 AM | link to this | reply

Re: Re: Ah, now I follow your argument, Anib

Indeed, it is difficult to keep track of all the slaughters happening in the world, that exceed 1000 deaths.  And each one causes several thousand other victims, mainly the families of the slain.  I have not been keeping up with the campaigns of slaughter in Africa lately, but I know it is a fertile land for slaughter.

posted by GoldenMean on June 26, 2018 at 12:23 AM | link to this | reply

Re: Ah, now I follow your argument, Anib

Consider all of the slaughters going on right now in central Africa.....

posted by Corbin_Dallas on June 25, 2018 at 8:20 AM | link to this | reply

.... and so ....

.... this intervention from God, to stop major genocidal evil, would leave us to deal with those criminals, gangs, serial killers, etc., who prey upon us every day.  That would still give us plenty of bad guys to defeat, for our moral development,  for "trying to figure as to how to counter the designs of the evil predators."  All the thieves, abusers, rapists, murderers, serial killers, etc. would still be preying on us.

But this is not happening, and so .... defenders of God are left trying to explain why he allows unlimited evil, unlimited murder, unlimited genocide, unlimited tyranny into the billions of victims.  Good luck with that.  I think that God is limited in some way, prevented from protecting us from genocide....  otherwise He would do so.

posted by GoldenMean on June 25, 2018 at 7:46 AM | link to this | reply

Ah, now I follow your argument, Anib

You say  "God gives us free will to exercise and does not intervene. His inervention would make us dependent on Him and we will stop trying to figure as to how to counter the designs of the evil predators."  So....  it is good for humanity to be savaged by tyrants and monsters who oppress and slaughter millions?  And good for us to figure out how to stop them on our own?  

I don't think so.  I think an era of slaughter sets us back in our development, and we have to again dig out of the horror and misery and destruction, like Europe had to do during and after the Dark Ages.  Just think how many Hindus and Buddhists that the Muslims slaughtered in their many invasions of India.

I propose that God should intervene after a tyrant has gained enough power to murder 1000 people  (and actually murdered them).  Or maybe I would go with 10,000, but that is my upper limit.  That would prevent the countless horrific runaway genocides that we have suffered on this planet, starting at least with Genghis Khan, who slaughtered peasants who were scratching out an agricultural living for themselves, because he thought they were useless.  Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of others (maybe millions) he slaughtered.  It would have prevented the horrible Turkish Armenian holocaust, which just had its 100th anniversary in the news.  

posted by GoldenMean on June 25, 2018 at 7:00 AM | link to this | reply

Re: Concerning God's will

posted by Corbin_Dallas on June 25, 2018 at 5:48 AM | link to this | reply

Concerning God's will

Kant's Categorical Imperative is dependent upon his arguments concerning "learning" the will of God, which requires immortality, or in other words unlimited time,  which gives a great deal of latitude and allows for unlimited mistakes, with no real accountability,  much like the current crop of New Age moral philosophies.

But then Kant changes hats, from unlimited forgiveness to exacting moral accountability, from moment to moment, with his moral teachings, crowned with the Categorical Imperative.

Kant is a paradox.....  he allows unlimited mistakes for eternity on one hand, but requires strict moral discipline every second, on the other hand with his Categorical Imperative.  He does not really resolve the conflict between the two positions, but expects us his readers to somehow resolve it.  It is like an assignment that Kant gave to us, in his brighter moments of thought.  This resolution is possible, but only by bringing in elements that Kant did not describe or understand himself. 

posted by GoldenMean on June 25, 2018 at 3:43 AM | link to this | reply

Anib

Forgive me, my friend, for starting a new topic in the comments,  but I am very curious......  what is the Hindu version of moral reciprocity?  What revered old saying describes it best?  And what scripture is it from? 

Is it like the Christian version:  "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"....... or is it more like Kant's Categorical Imperative:  “Act only on that maxim which you can, at the same time, will to become a universal law.”

To help out,  I found one for you, but I don't know if the reference to the original document is correct:  "One should not behave towards others in a way that is disagreeable to oneself."  Mahabharata, Anusasana Parva 113.8

Please be advised, I think that this Hindu version of moral reciprocity has serious problems, as does the Golden Rule, but far less problems than Kant's Categorical Imperative.....

posted by GoldenMean on June 25, 2018 at 3:05 AM | link to this | reply

Anib...?

Thanks for your prayers for my mom. She is continuing her life at the nursing home, even though she is able to go back home, but she will not.  I surrender her to God's will,  but I do not really know what that may be, in this case.

Let us now turn to the topic at hand.  I do not know follow what you are talking about in your comment: "... as from the threatening skies that are non-living collection of debris, collectively 100,000 tons in weight and at that great speed would not still fully burn out and those that have capacity to decimate the world thirty times over, hundreds of times more powerful than nuclear bombs."

I am sorry, but I do not know how your comment relates to Kant. Apparently you are talking about space satellites and other space debris, but I don't think they are such a great threat, to our physical lives,  as Herr Kant was to our moral lives.

posted by GoldenMean on June 25, 2018 at 2:32 AM | link to this | reply

Re: Hello GM, the comment should have been here.

Hope your mother is doing well. I've kept her in my daily prayers. 

posted by anib on June 24, 2018 at 9:29 PM | link to this | reply

Hello GM, the comment should have been here.

I'll be back again to comment further. Kant's conviction that Categprcal Imperative is not, according to my way of thinking, anything to do with God's Will. God gives us free will to exercise and does not intervene. His inervention would make us dependent on Him and we will stop trying to figure as to how to counter the designs of the evil predators. The moral imlication of this will also be against our evolving. Just see a thousand years back and how many devices are now available to us for our protection, and so many more are now in the offing, as from the threatening skies that are non-living collection of debris, collectively 100000 tons in weight and at that great speed would still not fully burn out and those that have capacity to decimate  the world thirty times over, hundreds of times more powerful that nuclear bombs. I think we must give Kant credit for his beliefs which to him, were honest and at the most his own only and in no way universal. There are some other shortcomings too in his beliefs but that he would never believe that he is wrong must have been too overwhelming to his psyche  and that is why he went overboard, he went mad. He misconstrued the adage 'Love thy neighbour as thyself' as 'love thy wicked neighbour as thyself'. Enjoyed your writeCheers

posted by anib on June 24, 2018 at 1:44 AM | link to this | reply

GM.....

Excellent!

posted by Corbin_Dallas on June 21, 2018 at 5:49 AM | link to this | reply

RP

Yes!  That is an excellent way of describing it, and I would have used that term in my post,  if I had thought of it.  Kant had no "street smarts" whatsoever,  and his philosophy will literally get you and your family and friends killed,  if you follow it in societal conflicts.  This very point of yours will be illustrated in the next post.  Cheers

posted by GoldenMean on June 21, 2018 at 3:18 AM | link to this | reply

GM

Is it possible Kant had no idea of what today we term "street smarts?" 

posted by RPresta on June 20, 2018 at 10:30 PM | link to this | reply

Referrals - About Us - Press - Terms of Use - Privacy Policy - Conduct Policy
Copyright © 2018 Shaycom Corporation. All rights reserved.