Why the categorical imperative is important and applies immediately to the problems of this day:
Kant expressed extreme dissatisfaction with the popular moral philosophy of his day, believing that it could never surpass the level of hypothetical imperatives: a utilitarian says that murder is wrong because it does not maximize good for those involved, but this is irrelevant to people who are concerned only with maximizing the positive outcome for themselves. Consequently, Kant argued, hypothetical moral systems cannot persuade moral action or be regarded as bases for moral judgments against others, because the imperatives on which they are based rely too heavily on subjective considerations. He presented a deontological moral system, based on the demands of the categorical imperative, as an alternative.
Sounds to me like inventing a reason to believe something (e.g. God said so). When a question is based on a question, it can't possibly result in an unquestionable answer. The question of killing is often based on what God said but then is the inevitable next question of why should I believe God and what does that have to do with the fundamental truth or falsity of the first question.
Kant expressed extreme dissatisfaction with the popular moral philosophy of his day, believing that it could never surpass the level of hypothetical imperatives: a utilitarian says that murder is wrong because it does not maximize good for those involved, but this is irrelevant to people who are concerned only with maximizing the positive outcome for themselves. Consequently, Kant argued, hypothetical moral systems cannot persuade moral action or be regarded as bases for moral judgments against others, because the imperatives on which they are based rely too heavily on subjective considerations. He presented a deontological moral system, based on the demands of the categorical imperative, as an alternative.
- excerpt from the WIKI
A friend protested to say, hey, not before my coffee but it boils out to this:
Sounds to me like inventing a reason to believe something (e.g. God said so). When a question is based on a question, it can't possibly result in an unquestionable answer. The question of killing is often based on what God said but then is the inevitable next question of why should I believe God and what does that have to do with the fundamental truth or falsity of the first question.
This is a large-size deal to me because it's at the root of much of the social conflict in America today.
You can see the theoretical imperative in the endless dithering over the death penalty and invariably someone will quote something from the Bible as justification for it. However, that has nothing to do with the fundamental rightness or wrongness of killing people. In effect, the Bible adds a second opinion which really wasn't needed in the first place.
An example of that type of cognitive dissonance in a hypothetical imperative is in the addition of 'under God' to the money, etc. The logic is this gives greater validity because God is behind it but this means nothing at all because God won't pay it back, assuming God even exists, if the economy should tank.
'Under God' was added in 1956 and, from that temporal context, the change has no more to do with the vision of the Forefathers than Elvis Presley shaking his hips in a rock beat since both happened at the same time.
That's the brief on why thinking from the context of any hypothetical imperative is fundamentally flawed.
Note: I'm not a student of Kant and have no idea what deontological may mean even though I get a definition for almost every word I see which I do not understand. That one has no value beyond trying to impress posers in an 'online debate' so I don't care what it means.
This interest was triggered by Be Deutsch because that mentioned the 'categorical imperative' and that was mentioned as part of the little girl's spiel when she asked, "Do you want to know why, fuckface?" (YouTube: Be Deutsch)
So, yah, I did. The result is satisfying because it further expands the basis for conclusions based only on reason and not on any confounding factors.
Some German friends said the Be Deutsch video is not truly representative of all Germans and I know neither PEGIDA nor any hard-right organization would recognize a categorical imperative if it bit them on the ass. Fair enough as America has plenty of shitbirds too but they don't characterize America any more than PEGIDA characterizes Germany.
They are steadfastly for peace and they say, nicely, "Being like us takes bigger balls."
No comments:
Post a Comment