ThinkBlog

(My goodness, that was fast!) From the standpoint of Christianity, “all our righteousness is as filthy rags,” and so I don’t see how anything could be morally righteous according to anyone BUT the Author, and so all this ranking is nonsense.

I’m certainly not more informed by the categorical imperative than the decalogue, but I might argue that you can see how the decalogue fits with Kant’s reasoning with the imperative (though I’m not certain that more than one or two could be reasoned backwards, from the imperative to the Law).

Also, keep in mind that this test is not as thoroughgoing as, say, a philosophy or ethics class.

Here are the questions.
1. Moral statements are primarily statements of fact or truth / high priority.

2. Does each person have a moral purpose/morally ideal way to live? Yes, the ideal life exists outside of one’s preferences and is the same for all people / high priority.

3. Where does the proper distinction between “good” and “bad” come from? God’s will / high priority.

4. Must a person be coerced/ influenced at some level by societal powers in order to live morally/virtuously? No, society should be not be an influence on a person when one is trying to find virtue / med priority. (Medium because I don’t know that this fully captures what I think on the matter, but it’s the best of the choices.)

5. To be virtuous/live morally, we should primarily make moral distinctions according to our intellect in general, but not to achieve desires / med priority. (I say this instead of “religious revelation or spiritual reflection” because, in general, “spiritual reflection” usually means something ridiculously new-age, &c.)

6. Will using morality properly necessarily result in maximization of our own happiness? No, not necessarily / high priority.

7. Should I act as if the maxim (principle) with which I act were to become the universal law for all rational people? Dislike all answers for this question / med priority. I would say yes, except that Kant would hold to a stricter view than I’m willing to swallow. Of course, Thom, you and I have talked about how this strict interpretation allows for God’s grace: it is always wrong to lie, but if it saves a life, well, this is where (one point at which) we throw ourselves on God’s mercy.

8. Which is the most important, morally? None (end, means, intent) trumps the others / med priority. This is where I would say that all three must be in accordance, and that is impossible apart from knowledge, as you say, of the Author of ethics.

9. Is the self-pleasure or self-preservation of the individual ever in conflict with the same type of interests of others? Yes, and it is wrong to be selfish, one should lean towards benevolence / high priority.

10. Would it be ideal to maximize pleasure for all people even at the cost of liberty for some? No, maximization of pleasure for all people has nothing to do with morality / high priority.

11. Is ascetic living (simple life with a minimum of physical comforts) conducive to being virtuous? No, physical comforts are fine, they may even be rewarding / med priority.

12. A virtuous person can be described best as Humble, restrained and rational / med priority. Again, “humble, restrained, and spiritual” in generic form I would say is nothing more than quietly emotional.

So. Is the imperative incompatible with the decalogue? I would say that it’s as tough, and that Kant was informed by Judeo-Christian ethics. One can no more really adhere to the imperative any more than the decalogue, and though it not be inexhaustible, I can argue any of the points (I think) from the decalogue from a Kantian point of view.

I would think that the notion of intent is addressed by Kant in the same way as with the theological position that one sins because he is a sinner: everything that I do apart from the love of God is sinful, tainted with selfish desire, even if the means and ends are both apparently pure, even if I’m not aware of the taint. Would not Kant be forced to agree here?

Perhaps I am guilty of elevating Kantian ethics too high here?

(My goodness, that was fast!) From the standpoint of Christianity, “all our righteousness is as filthy rags,” and so I don’t see how anything could be morally righteous according to anyone BUT the Author, and so all this ranking is nonsense.

I’m certainly not more informed by the categorical imperative than the decalogue, but I might argue that you can see how the decalogue fits with Kant’s reasoning with the imperative (though I’m not certain that more than one or two could be reasoned backwards, from the imperative to the Law).

Also, keep in mind that this test is not as thoroughgoing as, say, a philosophy or ethics class.

Here are the questions.
1. Moral statements are primarily statements of fact or truth / high priority.

2. Does each person have a moral purpose/morally ideal way to live? Yes, the ideal life exists outside of one’s preferences and is the same for all people / high priority.

3. Where does the proper distinction between “good” and “bad” come from? God’s will / high priority.

4. Must a person be coerced/ influenced at some level by societal powers in order to live morally/virtuously? No, society should be not be an influence on a person when one is trying to find virtue / med priority. (Medium because I don’t know that this fully captures what I think on the matter, but it’s the best of the choices.)

5. To be virtuous/live morally, we should primarily make moral distinctions according to our intellect in general, but not to achieve desires / med priority. (I say this instead of “religious revelation or spiritual reflection” because, in general, “spiritual reflection” usually means something ridiculously new-age, &c.)

6. Will using morality properly necessarily result in maximization of our own happiness? No, not necessarily / high priority.

7. Should I act as if the maxim (principle) with which I act were to become the universal law for all rational people? Dislike all answers for this question / med priority. I would say yes, except that Kant would hold to a stricter view than I’m willing to swallow. Of course, Thom, you and I have talked about how this strict interpretation allows for God’s grace: it is always wrong to lie, but if it saves a life, well, this is where (one point at which) we throw ourselves on God’s mercy.

8. Which is the most important, morally? None (end, means, intent) trumps the others / med priority. This is where I would say that all three must be in accordance, and that is impossible apart from knowledge, as you say, of the Author of ethics.

9. Is the self-pleasure or self-preservation of the individual ever in conflict with the same type of interests of others? Yes, and it is wrong to be selfish, one should lean towards benevolence / high priority.

10. Would it be ideal to maximize pleasure for all people even at the cost of liberty for some? No, maximization of pleasure for all people has nothing to do with morality / high priority.

11. Is ascetic living (simple life with a minimum of physical comforts) conducive to being virtuous? No, physical comforts are fine, they may even be rewarding / med priority.

12. A virtuous person can be described best as Humble, restrained and rational / med priority. Again, “humble, restrained, and spiritual” in generic form I would say is nothing more than quietly emotional.

So. Is the imperative incompatible with the decalogue? I would say that it’s as tough, and that Kant was informed by Judeo-Christian ethics. One can no more really adhere to the imperative any more than the decalogue, and though it not be inexhaustible, I can argue any of the points (I think) from the decalogue from a Kantian point of view.

I would think that the notion of intent is addressed by Kant in the same way as with the theological position that one sins because he is a sinner: everything that I do apart from the love of God is sinful, tainted with selfish desire, even if the means and ends are both apparently pure, even if I’m not aware of the taint. Would not Kant be forced to agree here?

Perhaps I am guilty of elevating Kantian ethics too high here?