I could not sleep and it is 3.45 am where I am so I wish you all the best and perhaps you need to explain the categorical imperative more fully if you wish to steer the discussion back on course.

Good advice.




Weird that you would say something not yet said. I'm reading the discussion. So far, I've seen no coherent line of inquiry.

No, it's not the notion of categorical imperative I'm discussing.

So far, I've seen no coherent line of inquiry. — creativesoul

That’s why I’m here, to try and work out my thoughts.

Are we as a society moving away from morality to ideology?

Are morality and ideology different.

Is the categorical imperative an ideological concept?

If morality and ideology are different then which one should we choose to address education, science, politics?

If you do not vote in an election, you are still affecting the outcome. So you are not really involved in a non action. — Monitor

In theory then you would have to apply non-action to everything you do. Can you really see that as the moral choice when you do it sometimes and don’t other times?

“ So act as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in another, always as an end and never as only a means.”

It seems to me that ideology is about means. That is the difference from morality.

In theory then you would have to apply non-action to everything you do. Can you really see that as the moral choice when you do it sometimes and don’t other times? — Brett

excellent point.

Are we as a society moving away from morality to ideology?

Are morality and ideology different.

Is the categorical imperative an ideological concept? — Brett

Are you just playing devil's advocate or do you see real ramifications for the difference?

If it’s a moral decision then what would the Categorical Imperative be that makes it a moral choice, and therefore the right choice? — Brett

The categorical imperative deals with maxims, not individual choices. The most obvious maxim to satisfy the categorical imperative seems to be that, between reasonable adults, one should be allowed to marry whoever one wants.

I think what I’m trying to do is work out what are we addressing social issues with, are we addressing them morally or ideologically? — Brett

Well, what is an ideology? Ideologies are usually systems of thought we name as "isms". Fascism, communism, fundamentalism. Is Kantianism an ideology?

What defines an ideology in my mind is that it dominates your thinking, your worldview. This includes your sense of morality. It seems to me that how you answer moral questions is usually the best indicator to whether you follow an ideology.

A Christian Fundamentalists who is opposed to gay marriage will obviously frame their decision in moral terms. For them it's a moral question with an obvious answer. So I think the proper question isn't between morality and ideology. It's between a morality based on ideas and one based on an ideology.

In theory then you would have to apply non-action to everything you do. Can you really see that as the moral choice when you do it sometimes and don’t other times? — Brett

Action and non-action are constructs. In reality, while you're conscious, you are always doing both. Where action and non-action come in is when we set up certain obligations or prohibitions. Then we have to decide whether you did something you shouldn't have or failed to do something you should. The focus in that case is on a certain sequence of events which should have happened, and whether what you did was action or non-action depends on whether it was your duty to further or stop that sequence.

Are you just playing devil's advocate or do you see real ramifications for the difference? — Monitor

In some ways I’m trying to work out where we’re going.

Edit: yes I see real ramifications. If I’m correct?

The most obvious maxim to satisfy the categorical imperative seems to be that, between reasonable adults, one should be allowed to marry whoever one wants. — Echarmion

That seems reasonable, but if we apply it universally then it means an adult male can marry whoever he wants. It doesn’t say anything about age or consent. Nor does it address cultural differences,

Is Kantianism an ideology? — Echarmion

Kantianism might be an ideology but it’s not a moral.

What defines an ideology in my mind is that it dominates your thinking, your worldview. — Echarmion

I don’t feel that this defines ideology well enough to decide if there is a difference. And the difference between morality and ideology, to me, is one of means and ends.

A Christian Fundamentalists who is opposed to gay marriage will obviously frame their decision in moral terms. For them it's a moral question with an obvious answer. — Echarmion

They may say they frame their their decision in moral terms, but is it really moral in Kant’s terms or just ideology.

So I think the proper question isn't between morality and ideology. It's between a morality based on ideas and one based on an ideology. — Echarmion

I don’t know if a moral can be based on ideology. Is it still a moral decision?

That seems reasonable, but if we apply it universally then it means an adult male can marry whoever he wants. It doesn’t say anything about age or consent. Nor does it address cultural differences, — Brett

The categorical imperative does not account for cultural differences. It's fundamentally a personal stabdard, it's supposed to help you make your own moral decisions. It doesn't apply directly to judging the conduct of others. Doing so would be notoriously difficult anyways, seeing as you'd have to guess what maxim they're operating under.

As to your other objections, appropriate limits can be worked in. Whenever you translate a maxim into a single precise statement, you're going to loose some information / need to add a lot of caveats, since in your own mind, you'll usually have a continuum of connected maxims, not a set of precise and isolated statements.

Kantianism might be an ideology but it’s not a moral. — Brett

It does include a moral system, as I think all ideologies do. I don't know what "a moral" is exactly, unless you mean the metaphorical message of fables and tales.

They may say they frame their their decision in moral terms, but is it really moral in Kant’s terms or just ideology. — Brett

I think any maxim that references a sacred text which only some people accept to be actually sacred would fail the categorical imperative, on the basis that a maxim that seeks to impose one of several religious view to the exclusion of all others is inherently contradictory.

There is an interesting issue with the CI though when it comes to views that are universal to everyone you might conceivably be in a relation with. If everyone agrees that the Bible is the true word of God, no exceptions, it'd be hard to conclude that following the Bible in all questions cannot be universalised.

I don’t know if a moral can be based on ideology. Is it still a moral decision? — Brett

Do you mean here whether the decision happens in a moral framework at all or whether it is the correct decision given a specific framework (e.g. the CI)?

It's fundamentally a personal stabdard, — Echarmion

I feel that this is one thing a categorical imperative is not. It’s true that part of our intellectual development is the ability to choose between two alternative actions. But being moral us making the right decision, and, according to Kant,

“The categorical imperative is something that a person must do, no matter what the circumstances. It is imperative to an ethical person that they make choices based on the categorical imperative. Another way of saying that, is that an ethical person follows a "universal law" regardless of their situation.
Kant explained his ideas about following the categorical imperative by introducing one more idea he called a "maxim." A maxim is another way of saying what we want to do and why we want to do it in one sentence. We can learn ethical maxims by applying the test of the categorical imperative. And he said we can live ethical lives if we use these maxims whenever we make decisions.” Wikipedia

it's supposed to help you make your own moral decisions. — Echarmion

This is a bit ambiguous. It’s true that we are responsible for making moral decisions, but it’s not a decision based on personal, or relative ideas of morality, it’s one that must be tested by the categorical imperative.

But being moral us making the right decision, and, according to Kant, — Brett

Yes, but only you know what your maxims actually are, and you must decide for yourself what is and is not the right decision. There is no higher authority here than your own reason. And there is no-one who puts you under any obligation except yourself.

I don’t know if a moral can be based on ideology. Is it still a moral decision?
— Brett

Do you mean here whether the decision happens in a moral framework at all or whether it is the correct decision given a specific framework (e.g. the CI)? — Echarmion

My response here was to your comment; “ So I think the proper question isn't between morality and ideology. It's between a morality based on ideas and one based on an ideology.
— Echarmion

Can ideology really create a moral position?

There is no higher authority here than your own reason. And there is no-one who puts you under any obligation except yourself. — Echarmion

Except the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative is reason in action and this reason is universal.

Except the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative is reason in action and this reason is universal. — Brett

But acting in accordance with the CI is something you do, for yourself. It's not framed as a divine mandate you have to follow. Kant invites you to use it as a means to turn yourself into a moral, and therefore a free, person. That's why I call it a personal standard. The end goal is your freedom.

Can ideology really create a moral position? — Brett

I am not sure. It depends on whether there is a "correct" ideology to follow. One might call Kant's approach the ideology of freedom. But the term has a negative, oppressive connotation.

But acting in accordance with the CI is something you do, for yourself. It's not framed as a divine mandate you have to follow. Kant invites you to use it as a means to turn yourself into a moral, and therefore a free, person. — Echarmion

Yes I agree with you on that. You choose to be moral. However to use a categorical imperative as a means turns it into a hypothetical imperative. A categorical imperative serves ends only. The moral crime of killing is not the means to be something, it is the end in itself.

The same with using it as a means to freedom. That is not why you do it.

In fact isn’t it the other way around; because we are free we can choose to be moral.

However to use a categorical imperative as a means turns it into a hypothetical imperative. A categorical imperative serves ends only. The moral crime of killing is not the means to be something, it is the end in itself. — Brett

It's sounds a bit paradoxical, true. But the relation between the categorical imperative and freedom is not a means - ends relationship as with hypothetical imperatives.

A hypothetical imperative starts with a desired state of affairs - e.g. "I want to be rich" and then gives you the required steps. They are imperative only so long as you follow the goal.

But there is no concrete goal associated with freedom that you can reach in a number of steps. It's not a state of affairs. It's a way of being. And this way of being is following the imperative of reason categorically.

Okay, I could unpack this more but I don’t think it’s necessary because we can still move forward without doing so. We are free and therefore we can choose to be moral.

Echarmion

But acting in accordance with the CI is something you do, for yourself. It's not framed as a divine mandate you have to follow. Kant invites you to use it as a means to turn yourself into a
moral ... person. — Brett

That we can agree on.

But when you say “ CI is something you do, for yourself” do you mean you choose it yourself or you do it not for yourself but for others. Does it make you a moral person because you do it for yourself?

I still want to find out if morality is different from ideology. What is ideology? What is the source of ideology? If it stems from moral acts and thoughts, which is based on the categorical imperative, which is based on our intellectual faculties, then it is moral. And the only way I can think of it being connected to morals is if the categorical imperative can be applied to it.

But when you say “ CI is something you do, for yourself” do you mean you choose it yourself or you do it not for yourself but for others. Does it make you a moral person because you do it for yourself? — Brett

The core idea behind the CI is to dissolve the boundary between yourself and "others" by imagining yourself to simultaneously be every other person. One might say you turn yourself into the metaphysical all-encompassing logos of old.

Instead of acting in a specific interest (yours or that of any other person), you act solely on the basis of duty to that overarching reason. But because that reason does not actually exist as a force outside of you, the duty is really only to yourself. It arises when you recognise yourself as a subject and is a direct consequence of thinking through the implications.

So it's not something you do for yourself as in a self-help philosophy. It's not something pleasurable or fulfilling, necessarily. It's just what's dictated by your reason if you consider what it means to be a subject that shares a world with other subjects.

I still want to find out if morality is different from ideology. What is ideology? What is the source of ideology? — Brett

If we start with etymology, the source of the term ideology is the term idea, which is also related to the ideal. Ideas are not things. They're abstract thoughts. A major category of thoughts.

An ideology is a collection of ideas that is weaved so tightly that it becomes an overwhelming framework for everything you think and do. This is usually a bad thing, but equality, freedom, humanity, are also ideas. So there might be a truly moral ideology, one which only leads to maxims which conform with the CI. Indeed Kant certainly wove a complex system out of ideas, so maybe the CI is, as I said earlier, itself an ideology.

But this seems perilously close to semantics, wordplay. What do you actually want to know? Why is the difference between ideology and morality important? Which real situation do you want to resolve?

↪Echarmion

It's fundamentally a personal stabdard,
— Echarmion

I feel that this is one thing a categorical imperative is not. — Brett

Habermas relies heavily on the categorical imperative in his theories on legitimation in discourse theory and deliberative democracy. Certainly he feels that it is a collective principle. Inasmuch as duties and rights reciprocally entail this seems to make sense.

Why is it the right thing to do? — Brett

Marriage is something people do (and have apparently done since time immemorial). Gay people are people. Seems simple to me. Perhaps the underlying problem is that only recently is it understood that gay people are (just) people

the modern world and how we live in it and how we look at it according to Kant’s Categorical Imperative and how that’s applied. — Brett

The c.i. Is not an application to the world; it is a command of reason, that conditions the subjective moral determinations applied because of the world. In effect, the c.i. has to do with the moral agent, not the world in which the agent happens to find himself.

Not to kill could be a c.i., insofar as the c.i. begins with “act only.....”, which makes explicit that if a moral agent does not kill, he is in accordance with his own principles. But that’s not the problem. The problem arises in the continuation of the c.i. to its end, which is, “....were to be a universal law”.

In other words....be very careful what you wish for, as there are no possible exceptions whatsoever to a c.i.

as there are no possible exceptions whatsoever to a c.i. — Mww

As given, but it's possible to have more than one - and fun is restored to the world!

Hey......

Yeah, true, the number depending on the reference literature. Kant himself says there is only one, then goes on to alter it slightly so one becomes three: so-called the law of universality, the law of autonomy and the law of humanity. Gregor, Palmquist and Guyer say there are eleven. Hypothetical imperatives, on the other hand, are as numerous as the desires from which they arise.

Me...I stick with the Good Doctor:

“....There is therefore but one categorical imperative, namely, this: Act only.....”
(FPMM, 1785, pagination unavailable on iPad ebook......sorry)

Let the good times roll.....

My notion is, don't kill! What? Never? Well, hardly ever. And so forth. That is, the c.i. may be a command of reason, but it depends on the reason. Not arguing, here, just chiseling away at my own understanding. Correction appreciated!

An ideology is a collection of ideas that is weaved so tightly that it becomes an overwhelming framework for everything you think and do. This is usually a bad thing, but equality, freedom, humanity, are also ideas. — Echarmion

I would class both Catholicism and Marxism as ideologies. One is based on a set of morals (questionable) the other “ a method of socioeconomic analysis that uses a materialist interpretation of historical development, better known as historical materialism, to understand class relations and social conflict as well as a dialectical perspective to view social transformation.” Wikipedia

Where an ideology is based and develops from a moral position it seems to me that the moral has been drawn into service of the idea. Which means it’s no longer a choice to be made by the individual but virtually a maxim to live by. If the choice is no longer made by the individual then that person is no longer free and if they are not free to choose between to alternative outcomes then they are not capable of making a moral position.