All of this
is because you misunderstand Kant, right here explicitly:
He didn't have you in mind because he wasn't a hedonist. He advocated deontology.
Still wrong. Power puts you in a place of authority. That's what the word itself means. Acting rationally makes you a moral authority.
Besides the point. Joe is still a moral authority. And if you don't
because
then you're not understanding, yet. If Kant is correct in that morality can be seen like physical laws, then for the individual it means acting rationally will inherently be morally good. If said individual is in a position of power, then naturally that makes them a moral authority. They're not an authority of morals, but an authority for morals. The former implies they have power over morals themselves, which can't be the case, since they are like physical laws, and thus it is the other way around - laws have power over them, naturally. For a "god", things might be different, but we'll leave that aside for now. In any case, it must be the latter for anything beneath a god. And all it means is they are in a position to be morally good to a grander scale than anyone else.
Rhythm Wrote:I wouldn;t know, but I know that what you described has little, if anything, to do with my morality.
Quote:No need, really, nothing to do with my morality.
Quote:Sure is, pewpewpew. I'll parade his skull up and down the street and -still- be a good person, too.
Quote:Suppose it depends on the motivations of the person asking for help, eh?
Quote:Meh, like I said, kant doesn't describe my morality.
is because you misunderstand Kant, right here explicitly:
Quote:It's not an issue of understanding, I just don't think it approaches morality as I apply it in my life. I'm not the sort of hedonist kant had in mind.
He didn't have you in mind because he wasn't a hedonist. He advocated deontology.
Quote:-your definition did.....so, yeah, you did. Unless you arent referring to that definition..which wasn't a definition of a moral authority anyway......
Still wrong. Power puts you in a place of authority. That's what the word itself means. Acting rationally makes you a moral authority.
Quote:Which, ofc, he never will, since gods don't exist anywhere but Joe's mind.
Besides the point. Joe is still a moral authority. And if you don't
Quote:...find joe any more or less credible a moral authority...
because
Quote:...moral absolutes [don't have] something to do with available resources.
then you're not understanding, yet. If Kant is correct in that morality can be seen like physical laws, then for the individual it means acting rationally will inherently be morally good. If said individual is in a position of power, then naturally that makes them a moral authority. They're not an authority of morals, but an authority for morals. The former implies they have power over morals themselves, which can't be the case, since they are like physical laws, and thus it is the other way around - laws have power over them, naturally. For a "god", things might be different, but we'll leave that aside for now. In any case, it must be the latter for anything beneath a god. And all it means is they are in a position to be morally good to a grander scale than anyone else.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
