What is [interpersonal] moral legitimacy, and do we need it?

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

There are two examples given.

Prasad Chitta said:

E.g., eating tasty food is not good for health. So, choosing healthy food over the tasty food is good for the individual and at the same time good for the world by making production of such healthy food environmentally friendly.

Similarly, the materialism and capitalism are pleasing to individuals in short term but they are ultimately causing harm to the overall humanity by over-production and over-consumption. Choosing spirituality over materialism is good for the individual as well as to the universe.

The first is pretty convincing as an example: the second is a matter of opinion and the answer is more complex than she states it.

I feel that this shows how contrived and artifial the Categorical Imperative is: it comes up once in a blue moon, and meanwhile, we are engaging cooperatively  or competitively with our fellows all the time.

 

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

@unseen -“how about this example: “I want to start a beef cattle ranch.””

– if we process this situation using “my” formulation, Perfect Compassion, the answer would be, “go for it, but don’t build too many, because this would cause harm to the world.”  (unnecessary harm.)

[UnseenParticipant]

Simon Paynton wrote:

@unseen -“how about this example: “I want to start a beef cattle ranch.”” – if we process this situation using “my” formulation, Perfect Compassion, the answer would be, “go for it, but don’t build too many, because this would cause harm to the world.” (unnecessary harm.)

“…don’t build too many…” seems to miss the point by a mile. Applying the CI, I’m trying to decide if by starting a cattle ranch, I’m affirming that it’s okay for others—possibly many others or all others—to also build cattle ranches?

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

If the whole world started building cattle ranches, it would probably mean the end of civilisation as we know it.

But the rule is a hypothetical thought experiment, and nowhere in it (I believe) is it implied that what I do will influence the whole world to do the same.

“miss the point by a mile”

– I thought the point was to answer the questions “what should I do, and why should I do it?”.

You should give that CI a try, and see how it works out.

[DavisModerator]

Simon Paynton wrote:

@davis – can you give an example of where the Categorical Imperative is used in real life?

Not until you put those 15 questionable actions in order. I’ll tell you after you do that.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

“give that CI a try”

– I would have thought the answer is, don’t build one, because if everybody built cattle ranches, it would be very bad for the world.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

@davis – “put those 15 questionable actions in order”

– I would have thought that’s a pointless exercise.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Unseen wrote:

Like the Golden Rule (which it is, basically, reworded somewhat), it depends upon the notion that “people are the same wherever you go,” that all people want or value the same things.

I think you’re missing the point of how the Golden Rule works.

In using the Golden Rule, we somehow put our own self, or a loved one, or some other valued person, in the place of somebody else with similar needs – automatically.

So it’s always going to come from a personal perspective, but it’s universal in that we all do it.

[ClearskyParticipant]

Microevolution leads to Macroevolution leads to

Brain leads to

Categorical Imperative (CI) leads to

Healing principle Leads to

Perfect Compassion leads to

Interpersonal Moral legitimacy leads to

Human Flourishing “Eudaimonia”

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Clearsky wrote:

leads to

In my opinion, several of those could be left out.

1. [some kind of] evolution leads to
2. Healing Principle leads to
3. Perfect Compassion leads to
4. Cooperative human flourishing.

Create opportunities not threats for oneself.

[ClearskyParticipant]

Ok I had to get a new login as I forget my password for ( Brightsky)!

• You would leave out the Brain as the physical substrate for mind?
• You would leave out CI & autonomy ( free will agency)?
• Without a mind and freewill
• How can one say a human is flourishing?

Are you advocating Biological determinism?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_determinism?wprov=sfla1

What about the role of culture? Richard Dawkins talks about the existence of cultural memes?

Can human morals be purely due to evolutionary forces?

Does Evolution have a Telos?

Lastly are you suggesting that the watchmaker is not blind?

 

 

[UnseenParticipant]

Simon Paynton wrote:

Unseen wrote:

Like the Golden Rule (which it is, basically, reworded somewhat), it depends upon the notion that “people are the same wherever you go,” that all people want or value the same things.

I think you’re missing the point of how the Golden Rule works. In using the Golden Rule, we somehow put our own self, or a loved one, or some other valued person, in the place of somebody else with similar needs – automatically. So it’s always going to come from a personal perspective, but it’s universal in that we all do it.

I see, so if the other party is suicidal, is it okay to agree to kill him, then kill him under the Golden Rule?

• This reply was modified 5 years, 8 months ago by  Unseen.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

“I see, so if the other party is suicidal, is it okay to agree to kill him, then kill him under the Golden Rule?”

– the most likely thing to happen is that I already have been in that position myself, or one of my loved ones has, and therefore, I identify the stranger’s predicament with my own or my loved one’s. Obviously, I wanted those people to live.  I was greatly concerned for them.  I care about them.  Because of: 1) the imperative to help in response to need; and 2) the interchangeability of human beings psychologically and morally, I see this other person in need (suicidal) and transfer the care and concern of myself or my loved one onto them.  That’s how the Golden Rule works.  It means to do the best for somebody.  Although I’m sure there is a negative version too: “this” kind of person once pissed me off, so I hate anyone who reminds me of them.

Does that make sense?  See also http://yellowgrain.co.uk/golden_rule.html

[UnseenParticipant]

Simon Paynton wrote:

“I see, so if the other party is suicidal, is it okay to agree to kill him, then kill him under the Golden Rule?” – the most likely thing to happen is that I already have been in that position myself, or one of my loved ones has, and therefore, I identify the stranger’s predicament with my own or my loved one’s. Obviously, I wanted those people to live. I was greatly concerned for them. I care about them. Because of: 1) the imperative to help in response to need; and 2) the interchangeability of human beings psychologically and morally, I see this other person in need (suicidal) and transfer the care and concern of myself or my loved one onto them. That’s how the Golden Rule works. It means to do the best for somebody. Although I’m sure there is a negative version too: “this” kind of person once pissed me off, so I hate anyone who reminds me of them. Does that make sense? See also http://yellowgrain.co.uk/golden_rule.html

Your argument countenances the notion that it’s okay to forget the strict interpretation of the GR and do what the f*** you want to do according to your values in total disregard of the other’s wishes. Here in Oregon we have assisted suicide so problems like this aren’t always just thought problems.

[_Robert_Participant]

The golden rule is often pretty good as far as guidance but in many cases it is utterly useless. It is completely relative to the individual. I think it was a major oversight by the bible authors as the previous rule was always to treat people as god tells you to.

[Author]

Posts