Who determines the Maxim: the moral Law?

[ding]

Human behavior does not reflect a moral imperative

Of course it does. Otherwise we would have no concept or expectation for fair.

 

[Wry Catcher]

For example, some will ignore the below linked behavior below, others will find it reprehensible and still others a personal issue not worth commentary:

R.N.C. Official Who Agreed to Pay Playboy Model $1.6 Million Resigns

 

[ding]

For example, some will ignore the below linked behavior below, others will find it reprehensible and still others a personal issue not worth commentary:

R.N.C. Official Who Agreed to Pay Playboy Model $1.6 Million Resigns

The moral law is about what we ought to do, not what we do.

In society we have laws prohibiting murder, yet murders still occur. The fact that murders still occur in no way diminishes the validity of the law.

 

[Wry Catcher]

For example, some will ignore the below linked behavior below, others will find it reprehensible and still others a personal issue not worth commentary:

R.N.C. Official Who Agreed to Pay Playboy Model $1.6 Million Resigns

The moral law is about what we ought to do, not what we do.

In society we have laws prohibiting murder, yet murders still occur. The fact that murders still occur in no way diminishes the validity of the law.

I wrote: "Human behavior does not reflect a moral imperative"

Your wrote: "Of course it does. Otherwise we would have no concept or expectation for fair."

Did you a have typo or misspeak?

 

[ding]

For example, some will ignore the below linked behavior below, others will find it reprehensible and still others a personal issue not worth commentary:

R.N.C. Official Who Agreed to Pay Playboy Model $1.6 Million Resigns

The moral law is about what we ought to do, not what we do.

In society we have laws prohibiting murder, yet murders still occur. The fact that murders still occur in no way diminishes the validity of the law.

I wrote: "Human behavior does not reflect a moral imperative"

Your wrote: "Of course it does. Otherwise we would have no concept or expectation for fair."

Did you a have typo or misspeak?

No. The behavior I was referring to was our concept of fairness. When we violate this concept, rather than abandon it, we rationalize that we did not violate it. It is this behavior which proves there is a moral imperative that we did not make and cannot seem to get rid of.

 

[ding]

For example, some will ignore the below linked behavior below, others will find it reprehensible and still others a personal issue not worth commentary:

R.N.C. Official Who Agreed to Pay Playboy Model $1.6 Million Resigns

The moral law is about what we ought to do, not what we do.

In society we have laws prohibiting murder, yet murders still occur. The fact that murders still occur in no way diminishes the validity of the law.

I wrote: "Human behavior does not reflect a moral imperative"

Your wrote: "Of course it does. Otherwise we would have no concept or expectation for fair."

Did you a have typo or misspeak?

So just because we violate the moral law, that does not mean the moral law is invalid or does not exist. Hence my saying the moral law is about what we ought to do and not what we do do.

 

[zaangalewa]

No. It's natures way as nature has chosen male female pairs for procreation. Are there exceptions? Sure. There almost always are.

I'm not even sure if having 2 parents the whole time is even the dominant method in nature to raise offspring. And even among humans, plenty of successful outcomes have arisen from non-2 parent families. And look at you and hob, I bet that both of you had 2 parents. So really, it doesn't prove much, except maybe a preference among humans to be coupled, which we already knew.

Kindergarten problems? Every bee has a mother queen and a father drone. This are the biological parents. And every bee has lots of sisters or brothers: this are the social parents. A baby bee needs a beehive and a human being a village full of people for growing.

When you figure out what you're trying to say, please come back and try again.

Try to live like a bee then you will understand what the problem is. The world is word of god - but no one becomes a bee because he likes to be a bee.

Still makes no sense. Last try.

Okay. I will not annoy you any longer.

 

[MaryL]

All I know is California is going bankrupt. Perhaps we need to involve the common man in our future instead of ignoring us...after all, that's exactly what ignites revolutions, isn't it? When were we asked if we wanted sanctuary for illegal aliens? Anyone remember being asked about that trivial issue?

 

[Taz]

All I know is California is going bankrupt. Perhaps we need to involve the common man in our future instead of ignoring us...after all, that's exactly what ignites revolutions, isn't it? When were we asked if we wanted sanctuary for illegal aliens? Anyone remember being asked about that trivial issue?

Beaners vote Democrat, that's why it happened.

 

[G.T.]

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 ?

There is no such thing as a literal Moral Law that's seperate from cognitive beings, there is a sometimes codified and sometimes not behavioral pattern to optimize survival and quality of life. It's as simple as cause and effect and our ability to analyze it.

 

[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 ?

There is no such thing as a literal Moral Law that's seperate from cognitive beings, there is a sometimes codified and sometimes not behavioral pattern to optimize survival and quality of life. It's as simple as cause and effect and our ability to analyze it.

C.S. Lewis responds...

"Every one has heard people quarreling. Sometimes it sounds funny and sometimes it sounds merely unpleasant; but however it sounds, I believe we can learn something very important from listening to the kind of things they say. They say things like this: "How'd you like it if anyone did the same to you?" — "That's my seat, I was there first" — "Leave him alone, he isn't doing you any harm" — "Why should you shove in first?" — "Give me a bit of your orange, I gave you a bit of mine" — "Come on, you promised." People say things like that every day, educated people as well as uneducated, and children as well as grown-ups. Now what interests me about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man's behavior does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of behavior which he expects the other man to know about. And the other man very seldom replies: "To hell with your standard." Nearly always he tries to make out that what he has been doing does not really go against the standard, or that if it does there is some special excuse. He pretends there is some special reason in this particular case why the person who took the seat first should not keep it, or that things were quite different when he was given the bit of orange, or that something has turned up which lets him off keeping his promise. It looks, in fact, very much as if both parties had in mind some kind of Law or Rule of fair play or decent behavior or morality or whatever you like to call it, about which they really agreed. And they have. If they had not, they might, of course, fight like animals, but they could not quarrel in the human sense of the word. Quarreling means trying to show that the other man is in the wrong. And there would be no sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are; just as there would be no sense in saying that a footballer had committed a foul unless there was some agreement about the rules of football. Now this Law or Rule about Right and Wrong used to be called the Law of Nature. Nowadays, when we talk of the "laws of nature" we usually mean things like gravitation, or heredity, or the laws of chemistry. But when the older thinkers called the Law of Right and Wrong "the Law of Nature," they really meant the Law of Human Nature. The idea was that, just as all bodies are governed by the law of gravitation and organisms by biological laws, so the creature called man also had his law — with this great difference, that a body could not choose whether it obeyed the law of gravitation or not, but a man could choose either to obey the Law of Human Nature or to disobey it. We may put this in another way. Each man is at every moment subjected to several different sets of law but there is only one of these which he is free to disobey. As a body, he is subjected to gravitation and cannot disobey it; if you leave him unsupported in mid-air, he has no more choice about falling than a stone has. As an organism, he is subjected to various biological laws which he cannot disobey any more than an animal can. That is, he cannot disobey those laws which he shares with other things; but the law which is peculiar to his human nature, the law he does not share with animals or vegetables or inorganic things, is the one he can disobey if he chooses. This law was called the Law of Nature because people thought that every one knew it by nature and did not need to be taught it. They did not mean, of course, that you might not find an odd individual here and there who did not know it, just as you find a few people who are color-blind or have no ear for a tune. But taking the race as a whole, they thought that the human idea of decent behavior was obvious to every one. And I believe they were right. If they were not, then all the things we said about the war were nonsense. What was the sense in saying the enemy were in the wrong unless Right is a real thing which the Nazis at bottom knew as well as we did and ought to have practiced? If they had had no notion of what we mean by right, then, though we might still have had to fight them, we could no more have blamed them for that than for the color of their hair. I know that some people say the idea of a Law of Nature or decent behavior known to all men is unsound, because different civilizations and different ages have had quite different moralities. But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own. Some of the evidence for this I have put together in the appendix of another book called The Abolition of Man; but for our present purpose I need only ask the reader to think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to — whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or everyone. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked. But the most remarkable thing is this. Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining "It's not fair" before you can say Jack Robinson. A nation may say treaties do not matter, but then, next minute, they spoil their case by saying that the particular treaty they want to break was an unfair one. But if treaties do not matter, and if there is no such thing as Right and Wrong — in other words, if there is no Law of Nature — what is the difference between a fair treaty and an unfair one? Have they not let the cat out of the bag and shown that, whatever they say, they really know the Law of Nature just like anyone else? It seems, then, we are forced to believe in a real Right and Wrong. People may be sometimes mistaken about them, just as people sometimes get their sums wrong; but they are not a matter of mere taste and opinion any more than the multiplication table. Now if we are agreed about that, I go on to my next point, which is this. None of us are really keeping the Law of Nature. If there are any exceptions among you, I apologize to them. They had much better read some other work, for nothing I am going to say concerns them. And now, turning to the ordinary human beings who are left: I hope you will not misunderstand what I am going to say. I am not preaching, and Heaven knows I do not pretend to be better than anyone else. I am only trying to call attention to a fact; the fact that this year, or this month, or, more likely, this very day, we have failed to practice ourselves the kind of behavior we expect from other people. There may be all sorts of excuses for us. That time you were so unfair to the children was when you were very tired. That slightly shady business about the money — the one you have almost forgotten — came when you were very hard up. And what you promised to do for old So-and-so and have never done — well, you never would have promised if you had known how frightfully busy you were going to be. And as for your behavior to your wife (or husband) or sister (or brother) if I knew how irritating they could be, I would not wonder at it — and who the dickens am I, anyway? I am just the same. That is to say, I do not succeed in keeping the Law of Nature very well, and the moment anyone tells me I am not keeping it, there starts up in my mind a string of excuses as long as your arm. The question at the moment is not whether they are good excuses. The point is that they are one more proof of how deeply, whether we like it or not, we believe in the Law of Nature. If we do not believe in decent behavior, why should we be so anxious to make excuses for not having behaved decently? The truth is, we believe in decency so much — we feel the Rule or Law pressing on us so — that we cannot bear to face the fact that we are breaking it, and consequently we try to shift the responsibility. For you notice that it is only for our bad behavior that we find all these explanations. It is only our bad temper that we put down to being tired or worried or hungry; we put our good temper down to ourselves.These, then, are the two points I wanted to make. First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in."

 

[G.T.]

People are free to extrapolate anything they'd like to believe about reality. Reality doesnt mind.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

 

[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.

 

[ding]

People are free to extrapolate anything they'd like to believe about reality. Reality doesnt mind.

For any given thing there is a final state of fact. Which when discovered is known that it was always true and will always be true. Objective truth is reality.

In the case of man we have inside information. We don't have to wonder. We are born with a preference for good over evil. And when we violate this concept instead of abandoning it we rationalize that we didn't violate it. So there is a moral imperative that we didn't create and that we are unable to abandon even when we violate it. That ought to arouse suspicion.

 

[Mindful]

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.

So let's have a philosophy to suit the present day?

 

[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.

So let's have a philosophy to suit the present day?

Why?

 

[Mindful]

Why not?

 

[Mindful]

Man's eternal quest for meaning.


I've forgotten what I'm talking about now.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.