Who determines the Maxim: the moral Law?

[G.T.]

self righteousness causes brain damage

 

[G.T.]

discovering ever-better ways of doing things is called evolution



folks who have small dicks and need to imagine theres some greater order HAVE to say...."we didnt know the right way before, but that doesnt mean it didnt always exist as the right way."

That sort of short sightedness is literally 1500s shit, but the human inclination for being a gullible lemming needing to have a sky daddy exascerbates it and prevents advancement, in many cases.

 

[ding]

Chapter 9 Kantian Theory : The Categorical Imperative

Who determines what the moral law requires?

The Pope? Nope.
The President? Congress? Nope.
Your parents? Nope.
The Bible? Nope.
The majority of those in your community or culture? Nope.

It is not a person, nor a group of persons who determine what the moral law requires of you. It is YOU. It is your reason.

And that is not because "nobody knows your life better than you." It is not because you think differently than others. It is not because you have different personal goals. It has nothing to do with the fact that you are different than other people. It has nothing to do with you as an individual.

For Kant, what determines what the law requires is exactly the same as that which makes you infinitely valuable -- your freedom, your ability to choose. And it is your reason that allows for that. Without reason, there is no freedom. Without reason, there is no capacity to choose. Therefore the life of morality requires that you/we all act in accord with reason -- because it is reason which is the source of our freedom, our autonomy, our dignity.

In short, you determine the right thing to do by appealing to your own universalizing and impartial rationality. It so happens that, since all human beings are rational in precisely the same way -- in virtue, that is, of being able to think abstractly and in terms of universal laws -- what you ought to do in situation A,B,C is exactly the same as what someone else ought to do in situation A,B,C.

Who Determines the Maxim: the moral Law ?

The Moral Law (aka Natural Law, Nature's Law, The Law of Right and Wrong, etc.) is discovered through a conflict and confusion process. But once it is discovered it is known that it was always that way and will always be that way.

Nonsense ^^^. I refer the reader this, and while reading it, why not consider Donald Trump:

The Madman and the Sword | The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus

This ^^^ is a summary of an argument written by Plato on Justice, in The Republic.

How exactly does this disprove what I wrote? It isn't even related to what I wrote.

If you would like to know what objective truth says on the subject of the madman and the sword, here it is...

Laws are valid only insofar as they are grounded in justice. A commitment to justice carries with it an obligation to disobey unjust laws despite the consequences to one's self.

As for Plato's Republic, it was a reaction to the barbaric behaviors of the Greeks and was about chiliastic socialism. No thanks.

Good grief, you're not only ignorant, you are too self righteous and judgmental. Now you can claim I judged you, and that's fair. I have, and will continue to view your posts from this perspective.

What am I ignorant about?

What did I write that would lead you to believe I am self righteous?

What did I say that was judgmental?

What did I write that makes you think I judged you?

 

[ding]

As our forefathers sought to build “one nation under God,” they purposely established their legal codes on the foundation of Natural Law. They believed that societies should be governed, as Jefferson put it, by “the moral law to which man has been subjected by his Creator, and of which his feelings, or conscience as it is sometimes called, are the evidence with which his Creator has furnished him. The moral duties which exist between individual and individual in a state of nature accompany them into a state of society,… their Maker not having released them from those duties on their forming themselves into a nation.” (Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 3:228)

 

[OklaSusie]

Chapter 9 Kantian Theory : The Categorical Imperative

Who determines what the moral law requires?

The Pope? Nope.
The President? Congress? Nope.
Your parents? Nope.
The Bible? Nope.
The majority of those in your community or culture? Nope.

It is not a person, nor a group of persons who determine what the moral law requires of you. It is YOU. It is your reason.

And that is not because "nobody knows your life better than you." It is not because you think differently than others. It is not because you have different personal goals. It has nothing to do with the fact that you are different than other people. It has nothing to do with you as an individual.

For Kant, what determines what the law requires is exactly the same as that which makes you infinitely valuable -- your freedom, your ability to choose. And it is your reason that allows for that. Without reason, there is no freedom. Without reason, there is no capacity to choose. Therefore the life of morality requires that you/we all act in accord with reason -- because it is reason which is the source of our freedom, our autonomy, our dignity.

In short, you determine the right thing to do by appealing to your own universalizing and impartial rationality. It so happens that, since all human beings are rational in precisely the same way -- in virtue, that is, of being able to think abstractly and in terms of universal laws -- what you ought to do in situation A,B,C is exactly the same as what someone else ought to do in situation A,B,C.

Who Determines the Maxim: the moral Law ?

^ All BS. God determines moral law. Whether man's laws on earth follow it is a different story.

Oooh, I'll tell you one thing: The Earth always follows God's moral laws.

Hardly. But each to his own. Hey, if you believe the earth is flat, well . . .

 

[Wry Catcher]

As our forefathers sought to build “one nation under God,” they purposely established their legal codes on the foundation of Natural Law. They believed that societies should be governed, as Jefferson put it, by “the moral law to which man has been subjected by his Creator, and of which his feelings, or conscience as it is sometimes called, are the evidence with which his Creator has furnished him. The moral duties which exist between individual and individual in a state of nature accompany them into a state of society,… their Maker not having released them from those duties on their forming themselves into a nation.” (Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 3:228)

Ever heard of the Magna Carta (1215)? Ever wonder what else was on going in those days (Think Crusades). Let's not pretend the Clergy of any denomination held to a moral imperative different than that outline in The Prince.

 

[ding]

As our forefathers sought to build “one nation under God,” they purposely established their legal codes on the foundation of Natural Law. They believed that societies should be governed, as Jefferson put it, by “the moral law to which man has been subjected by his Creator, and of which his feelings, or conscience as it is sometimes called, are the evidence with which his Creator has furnished him. The moral duties which exist between individual and individual in a state of nature accompany them into a state of society,… their Maker not having released them from those duties on their forming themselves into a nation.” (Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 3:228)

Ever heard of the Magna Carta (1215)? Ever wonder what else was on going in those days (Think Crusades). Let's not pretend the Clergy of any denomination held to a moral imperative different than that outline in The Prince.

Throughout the first century of US. history, natural law was upheld as a key principle of government by the American people and their leader, not only by Presidents and the Congress, but also by the Supreme Court.

In the view of the Court, its members were to decide cases by exercising “that understanding which Providence has bestowed upon them.” (Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1, 186-87, 1824). Since the laws they adjudicated were based on “the preexisting and higher authority of the laws of nature,” (The West River Bridge Company v. Joseph Dix, 47 U.S. 507, 532, 1848), they relied less on judicial precedent than on “eternal justice as it comes from intelligence… to guide the conscience of the Court.” (Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 39 U.S. 210, 225, 1840).

 

[ding]

Chapter 9 Kantian Theory : The Categorical Imperative

Who determines what the moral law requires?

The Pope? Nope.
The President? Congress? Nope.
Your parents? Nope.
The Bible? Nope.
The majority of those in your community or culture? Nope.

It is not a person, nor a group of persons who determine what the moral law requires of you. It is YOU. It is your reason.

And that is not because "nobody knows your life better than you." It is not because you think differently than others. It is not because you have different personal goals. It has nothing to do with the fact that you are different than other people. It has nothing to do with you as an individual.

For Kant, what determines what the law requires is exactly the same as that which makes you infinitely valuable -- your freedom, your ability to choose. And it is your reason that allows for that. Without reason, there is no freedom. Without reason, there is no capacity to choose. Therefore the life of morality requires that you/we all act in accord with reason -- because it is reason which is the source of our freedom, our autonomy, our dignity.

In short, you determine the right thing to do by appealing to your own universalizing and impartial rationality. It so happens that, since all human beings are rational in precisely the same way -- in virtue, that is, of being able to think abstractly and in terms of universal laws -- what you ought to do in situation A,B,C is exactly the same as what someone else ought to do in situation A,B,C.

Who Determines the Maxim: the moral Law ?

Wrong. Outcomes determine the moral law. Error can't stand. Eventually predictable surprises reveal the true standard. The highest standard. What you are describing is moral relativity.

 

[ding]

self righteousness causes brain damage

I thought that was moral relativity that caused that.

 

[Taz]

Morality is subjected. God made it that way so He could drown nearly all of humanity and get away with it.

 

[ding]

Morality is subjected. God made it that way so He could drown nearly all of humanity and get away with it.

A deterministic universe says otherwise.

You don't believe anything in Bible, so I'm pretty sure you blame the Jews for that. Especially since you have no love for other races.

 

[Taz]

Morality is subjected. God made it that way so He could drown nearly all of humanity and get away with it.

A deterministic universe says otherwise.

You don't believe anything in Bible, so I'm pretty sure you blame the Jews for that. Especially since you have no love for other races.

No, it's god's fault, He could have stopped His son from being tortured and killed.

 

[ding]

Morality is subjected. God made it that way so He could drown nearly all of humanity and get away with it.

A deterministic universe says otherwise.

You don't believe anything in Bible, so I'm pretty sure you blame the Jews for that. Especially since you have no love for other races.

No, it's god's fault, He could have stopped His son from being tortured and killed.

What exactly does that have to do with what I wrote? You can't believe he could have stopped it because you don't believe it happened the way it was written, right?

So you must blame the Jews for killing babies, right?

 

[OldLady]

We determine moral law, but you are right that it is our ability to reason that allows it. For every bit of good there is a corresponding pull to undo it. I am perfectly comfortable digging in my heels and pulling for what I've been taught and figured out is Right, because that is what is best for all of us. But I don't believe that moral Right is something separate and apart from our own perception. We are pretty much screwed. Fight it or don't.

 

[ding]

We determine moral law, but you are right that it is our ability to reason that allows it. For every bit of good there is a corresponding pull to undo it. I am perfectly comfortable digging in my heels and pulling for what I've been taught and figured out is Right, because that is what is best for all of us. But I don't believe that moral Right is something separate and apart from our own perception. We are pretty much screwed. Fight it or don't.

Do we determine moral laws or do we discover them?

The concept of the Law of Nature or Moral Law or Law of Right and Wrong has been known by man for many centuries. Every great thinker believed that we discovered the Law of Nature; that the Law of Nature existed independent of man. It was only waiting in time for man to discover them.

 

[Taz]

We determine moral law, but you are right that it is our ability to reason that allows it. For every bit of good there is a corresponding pull to undo it. I am perfectly comfortable digging in my heels and pulling for what I've been taught and figured out is Right, because that is what is best for all of us. But I don't believe that moral Right is something separate and apart from our own perception. We are pretty much screwed. Fight it or don't.

Do we determine moral laws or do we discover them?

The concept of the Law of Nature or Moral Law or Law of Right and Wrong has been known by man for many centuries. Every great thinker believed that we discovered the Law of Nature; that the Law of Nature existed independent of man. It was only waiting in time for man to discover them.

Survival of the fittest is nature’s law.

 

[Moonglow]

Who determines the Maxim: the moral Law?

My Mom

Then my wife...

Yeah! Freedom of will....Or something like that....

 

[ding]

We determine moral law, but you are right that it is our ability to reason that allows it. For every bit of good there is a corresponding pull to undo it. I am perfectly comfortable digging in my heels and pulling for what I've been taught and figured out is Right, because that is what is best for all of us. But I don't believe that moral Right is something separate and apart from our own perception. We are pretty much screwed. Fight it or don't.

Do we determine moral laws or do we discover them?

The concept of the Law of Nature or Moral Law or Law of Right and Wrong has been known by man for many centuries. Every great thinker believed that we discovered the Law of Nature; that the Law of Nature existed independent of man. It was only waiting in time for man to discover them.

Survival of the fittest is nature’s law.

Live by the sword and die by the sword is not survival of the fittest. That would be the rule of capture. Natural selection is not survival of the fittest.

 

[Taz]

Live by the sword and die by the sword is not survival of the fittest. That would be the rule of capture. Natural selection is not survival of the fittest.

""Survival of the fittest" is a phrase that originated from Darwinian evolutionary theory as a way of describing the mechanism of natural selection."
Survival of the fittest - Wikipedia