[split] Theistic VS Naturalistic morality

[fr0d0]

Kant’s Moral Argument

(1) Moral behaviour is rational.
(2) Morality behaviour is only rational if justice will be done.
(3) Justice will only be done if God exists.

[fr0d0]

"Moral behaviour, Kant is adamant, is rational behaviour; we have good reason to be moral. This is a fundamental principle of morality: if you ought to do something then you have a reason to do it. It makes no sense to say “I see that I ought to give money to charity, but I have no reason to.” If we ought to do something then that is a reason to do it. What is more, a moral reason is always a stronger reason for doing something than any other reason. If we have a moral reason to do a thing, and another reason not to do it, then rationally speaking we ought to do it. Moral behaviour is always rational."

Hence #1

[Violet]

Ohhhhh.... i get what you're saying now I appreciate Kant's take, though I've a different interpretation of it Still don't know where he was from, and googling is not what I wish to spend 2 minutes doing

I'd also make the argument that moral behavior is rational... but more for the reason that morals are themselves rationalized concepts than for the reason of being ought to do something implying that there is a reason for it (which I would call tautology, though i can see some people not following through so easily)

[fr0d0]

#2

Moral behaviour would not be rational if there were no guarantee that it would be rewarded. If, as seems to be the case, sin often profits more than righteousness, then surely it is sinful rather than righteous behaviour that would be rational. Faced with a choice between doing that which is right and doing that which is wrong but which benefits us most, if there are no comebacks for immorality then it is rational for us to do that which is wrong but which benefits us most. It is only if there are comebacks for immorality, if justice will ultimately be done, that we have a reason to be moral.



Kant was born in, spent his whole life in, and died in Konigsberg in East Prussia.

[theVOID]

Kant’s Moral Argument

(1) Moral behaviour is rational.
(2) Morality behaviour is only rational if justice will be done.
(3) Justice will only be done if God exists.

2 is a presupposition. Kant presupposes that morality is rational and therefore we have good reasons to behave morally, however, He also noted that in many cases immoral behaviour profits more than moral behaviour ie "Life is not fair". Therefore Kant also concludes that morality will only be rational (and therefore just) if there is life after this one in which there is ultimate justice. He however can't show that justice and rationality are both necessary.

This is an argument for an afterlife, it does not follow to god as Kant cannot establish that it must necessarily be God who is the bringer of balanced justice.

There is also no reason to assume that Justice will be done, that all of the moral and immoral deeds will balance out in the end - this is a bare assertion.

The idea of a cosmic justice also negates the principle of doing everything possible to ensure that justice is upheld in this life.

[fr0d0]

1. We already covered the proposition VOID.

2. No, Kant concludes that morality is only rational if God exacts justice in an afterlife. God is what we have defined as just. That's a given.

3. The reasoning is clear - this high moral standard only works with God. It isn't a bare assertion - but a reasoned one.

4. This in no way removes responsibility in this life. That's a bare accusation with no link here.

[theVOID]

1. We already covered the proposition VOID.

And I reject the presupposition. Morality can be rational and unjust, the utilitarian moral theories all have a rational morality that is not contingent upon ultimate justice.

2. No, Kant concludes that morality is only rational if God exacts justice in an afterlife. God is what we have defined as just. That's a given.

I was referring to Kant's own comments on his argument, it only requires that there is justice bought to the universe in a life after this one, it does not necessitate that a God is the being who brings the justice.

As reincarnation is also applicable as a form of 'balanced justice' God in this argument is a non-sequitur.

3. The reasoning is clear - this high moral standard only works with God. It isn't a bare assertion - but a reasoned one.

It works with any conceivable universal justice. Reincarnation with Karma also satisfies this.

4. This in no way removes responsibility in this life. That's a bare accusation with no link here.

Sorry, I meant to be more clear. It removes the necessity for justice in this life. That being, if one wants justice then justice must necessarily be dealt in this life and any justice that is not issued is justice failed.

If there is an afterlife where justice is done then there is no necessity for justice to be done or desired in this life. Justice in this life becomes arbitrary because justice will be done in the next, thus the only motivation for justice is to prevent further injustice and not justice for the necessity of it.

Not that there is anything wrong with that, it's just an observation.

[Edwardo Piet]

I don't believe justice is really attainable. We have to make do with the lesser of many evils and that's about the best we can get the way I see it. Since I consider even punishment to the commiter of a horrible crime as a 'lesser evil', but a necessary one usually. Because: I don't believe in 'desert' (as in 'just deserts') in philosophy, since I do not believe in free will so it makes no sense whatsoever to me. No one ever really 'deserves' anything good or bad. It's just nicer to experience pleasure and not so nice to suffer. And those who cause suffering to others may need to be dealt with (preferably humanely) so they don't do so in future - desert shouldn't come into it at all in my view.

There is no justice or 'fairness' in this world ultimately, it all comes down to choosing the best option available. In practice. Practical ethics.

That's my view anyway.

---

[...] If I experience life from first person, then presumably everyone else does as well, but then why am I me?

The anthropic principle can answer that question. You are you because if you weren't it wouldn't be specifically you asking that question, you'd be someone else asking that question. You have to be you and not someone else because you can't be yourself and somebody else at the same time, and you have to be somebody, so why not you?

[theVOID]

I don't believe justice is really attainable.

Of course it is, just not always, or even most of the time really.

We have to make do with the lesser of many evils and that's about the best we can get the way I see it. Since I consider even punishment to the commiter of a horrible crime as a 'lesser evil', but a necessary one usually. Because: I don't believe in 'desert' (as in 'just deserts') in philosophy, since I do not believe in free will so it makes no sense whatsoever to me. No one ever really 'deserves' anything good or bad. It's just nicer to experience pleasure and not so nice to suffer. And those who cause suffering to others may need to be dealt with (preferably humanely) so they don't do so in future - desert shouldn't come into it at all in my view.

As someone who believes in caused will (deterministic or not) should you not acknowledge that knowledge of a deterrent is a real causal factor and is highly effective, the deterrent (in this case punishment) must be real and substantial in order to work as a significant deterrent when make decisions later.

Since the deterrent can be taken into account during the decision making process along with all of the other causal factors, the outcome is more likely to be law abiding.

So the deterrent (punishment) becomes not a lesser of two evils, but one of the most useful tools in creating moral states to begin with.

[Edwardo Piet]

I'm all for punishment when it's an effective method as I said. It's the case of a lesser evil. The ideal would be no crime in the first place.

How can justice be actually attained fully without a belief in desert? It seems to me like it's just a case of choosing a less unjust option. It's still not just. Life isn't just.