| || |
Two things awe me most, the starry sky above me and the moral law within me.
Last edited by zaangalewa; 17th March 2017 at 12:29 AM.
By the way, you get that Kant was in agreement with me, right? Kant thought that the idea that we needed some external adjudicator dictating "right, and wrong" was complete bullshit. That was the point of that quote you just posted. He fully believed that the only "moral laws" were those that we find for ourselves; that there was no higher moral judge than man.
Last edited by Czernobog; 17th March 2017 at 07:41 AM.
?Knight's problem, and mine,
Right? Wrong? I spoke not about mathematics when I used the word "justice". It's for example hurting me always a lot if one of my dogs dies. That's not justice. My dogs should not die. That's not fair.is this concept that you need someone else to tell you right from wrong,
No one lives in your world of abstracts.and you need some threat of punishment, or promise of reward to do right.
I am an asshole - and I respect people. I don't see your problem. It feels not bad to be an asshole and it feels not bad to respect people. Depends.How about you just treat people with respect, and decency because that feels better than being a fucking asshole?
AhaHow about that for your reward? Why do you need to be threatened with some punishment, or retribution in order to be a decent human being? Are you incapable of just saying, "Hey, you know what? I want to treat my fellow human beings with respect, and dignity just because,"? Because, if not, then you are not a moral person, whatever you may tell yourself. You are not an ethical person, whatever you may tell yourself. You are an evil person, who only obeys the laws, follows the rules, and does what you are required to do in order to avoid punishment, and for the promise of reward.
Kant is not able to agree with you, because he is dead.By the way, you get that Kant was in agreement with me, right?
Bullshit? So why do you try to tell me what's right (you) and wrong (I)? Kant spoke about rationality - about ways how we are able to think and how we are not able to think. He was a philosopher of the enlightenment. He said everyone will find on his own what's right and wrong if he is using the own rationality. His "sapere aude" ( "Dare to be wise") is a short form of a sentence of Horace of the year 20 AD: "Dimidium facti, qui coepit, habet: sapere aude, incipe." (="He who has begun is half done; dare to know; begin now!"). Only because you think you are right this makes nothing right or wrong. Kant said not no one should read books or no one should listen what others are saying or no one should learn how to think and so on and so on ... .Kant thought that the idea that we needed some external adjudicator dictating "right, and wrong" was complete bullshit.
No - this said Kant not. He never said there is no higher entity than man. The original german words for "the starry sky above me" in "Two things awe me most, the starry sky above me and the moral law within me." are: "der bestirnte Himmel über mir". 'Correct' German would had been "der besternte Himmel über mir". Do you see a difference and what this difference means? It's the letter "e" vs "i" in the word "besternt" vs "bestirnt". "Stern" means "star" and "Stirn" means "forehead" in the german language. Behind the forehead are thoughts, logic, words.That was the point of that quote you just posted. He fully believed that the only "moral laws" were those that we find for ourselves; that there was no higher moral judge than man.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
Last edited by zaangalewa; 18th March 2017 at 04:44 AM.
Deontology is the study of that which is an "obligation or duty," and consequent moral judgment on the actor on whether he or she has complied. In philosophy and religion, states Bocheński, there is an important distinction between deontic and epistemic authority. A typical example of epistemic authority, explains Anna Brożek, is "the relation of a teacher to his students; a typical example of deontic authority is the relation between an employer and his employee." A teacher has epistemic authority when making declarative sentences that the student presumes is reliable knowledge and appropriate but feels no obligation to accept or obey; in contrast, an employer has deontic authority in the act of issuing an order that the employee is obliged to accept and obey regardless of its reliability or appropriateness.
Kant's moral philosophy is said to be deontological because it speaks of a universal moral law that is objective and accessible only through the application of pure reason.
What you seem to be suggesting is that moral law is what we find good for ourselves. According to kant, this is merely a hypothetical imperative because it accrues merely to subjective ends. Categorical imperatives are good in themselves and good without qualification.
Last edited by kingrat; 18th March 2017 at 08:20 AM.
Last edited by zaangalewa; 18th March 2017 at 10:41 PM.
Should you choose the former, I will give you this much of a hint. You said, "Drugs and alcohol make someone to feel good". Except I didn't say the point was to feel good. There was an important part you. Left. Out. You go back, reread post #57 and figure out that that part is, then see how that part renders your response meaningless, and useless.