I think the moral choice is not "for it" but to not stand against it. That could be defended as a moral position.

The whole point of the categorical imperative is considering a problem from the perspective of what would happen if everyone made this choice.
Perhaps it can be applied more usefully to the political issues of our time rather than to issue the one of same sex marriage. This is because most people who are opposed to same sex marriage are not really objecting with a view to what if everyone made this choice. It is not really likely that such a number of people would choose same sex marriage to be the point where the population would be likely to die out.

However, in issues such as ones like use of resources it could be useful to consider if everyone made certain choices, in terms of thinking in terms of one's own carbon footprint. Also, the idea of the categorical imperative could be useful in terms of social distancing measures. For example, if one thinks I just want to go out and enjoy oneself with disregard of any recommend distancing, it would be useful to consider what would happen if everyone made this choice too?

Of course, the way I am interpreting the categorical imperative is from a different basis to Kant because I am looking at the imperative more in terms of utilitarian ends rather than the general deontological approach. But perhaps ethics does not have to be a clash between an emphasis on duty or ends, but can combine the two criteria.

The categorical imperative, in its simplest expression, says a bible quote, "Do unto others as you wish to be done unto you".

In this sense, the gay marriage thing is divided. Gay people do wish to do others as is done to them (arsenokoitus.) Straight people (males) do not wish this. So the act, from a devout Christian viewpoint, is at best bilaterally periambiguous as to its moral value.

Coming from a female point of view, we need to ask Athena or other female contributors, as I would be only winging it and making random stabs at the dark hole, because god only knows that I don't know about femal philosophers who figured it out from a female point of view.

Perhaps it can be applied more usefully to the political issues of our time rather than to issue the one of same sex marriage. This is because most people who are opposed to same sex marriage are not really objecting with a view to what if everyone made this choice. — Jack Cummins

I guess what I’m trying to work out, with same sex marriage as an example, is whether it’s an ethical decision in supporting it or an ideological decision.

I think the moral choice is not "for it" but to not stand against it. That could be defended as a moral position. — Monitor

But wouldn’t that mean that the action is to do nothing, which would hardly be moral.

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?

I don't think that Kant made any reference to viewing the categorical imperative from a male or female point of view, although he was writing in an age in which females would have struggled to become philosophers. But even so I believe that the whole point is about universal principles based on a priori principles, even though I admit that I was slanting the imperative towards a bit more of a utilitarian one rather than the strict a priori principles.

The categorical imperative, in its simplest expression, says a bible quote, "Do unto others as you wish to be done unto you". — god must be atheist

No it doesn't.

But wouldn’t that mean that the action is to do nothing, which would hardly be moral. — Brett

The action would be to not interfere with the private actions of consenting adults who are not violating anyone else's rights.

But could non action be regarded as a Categorical Imperative?

Are you talking about the categorical imperative or just trying to find a basis from which to address social issues of every kind in a one size fits all approach?

Prior to the vote for same sex marriage the position of those for it was “it’s the right thing to do”.

Why is it the right thing to do?

I don't think that Kant made any reference to viewing the categorical imperative from a male or female point of view, — Jack Cummins

You're right. But the implication applies in special case of sex. I'll spell it out for you:

Gay men like being fucked.

Straight men don't.

Straight women get fucked.

Gay women get fucked only with devices.

I am sorry to have been forced to be so vulgar. I sincerely apologize to the readership for my vulgarity, but anything more subtle, and the readership here won't get it.

This arrangement is particularly important in "do unto others as you wish to be done to yourself."

Steraignt men do fuck. Gay men do fuck. But straight men "Do NOT NOT NOT like to be done to them as they do unto others."

Please note: vulgarity here I used to make it absolutely clear what I mean. I do respect and I support the right and privilege and beauty of gay sex, gay relationships, and heterosexual ones too. My posts in the past have proven that. But I had to spell out this thing in the level of the lowest common denominator so everyone understands what I mean.

I’m trying to determine whether we are addressing contemporary issues from a moral or ideological position.

Just in case you missed this:

Prior to the vote for same sex marriage the position of those for it was “it’s the right thing to do”.

Why is it the right thing to do?

It depends what you mean by moral or ideological? That is a whole debate beyond the basics of the categorical imperative.

"What if everyone acted like that?"

"If everyone acted like that, would the world be a better place?"




Such questions foster helping, cultivating, encouraging, and developing goodwill towards others. They are easily understood, easily taught, and can be put to immediate good use at an early age.

Gay men like being fucked.

Straight men don't.

Straight women get fucked.

Gay women get fucked only with devices.

I am sorry to have been forced to be so vulgar. — god must be atheist

...and wrong too!

Not all...

It does seem that you wrote this thread with a view to initiating discussion about gay marriage rather than the categorical imperative, despite your heading. The only person who is genuinely discussing the imperative is Creative Soul, and the whole aspect of the discussion should not be addressed in respect of same sex marriage as the one social issue to focus upon.

But could non action be regarded as a Categorical Imperative? — Brett

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

I chose same sex marriage because of the statement “it’s the right thing to do”. Why is it the right thing to do? Same sex marriage is not the issue, it’s just that the statement was attached to their campaign.

The subject is not gay marriage but whether that statement is a moral statement.

It depends what you mean by moral or ideological? That is a whole debate beyond the basics of the categorical imperative. — Jack Cummins

I don’t think it’s is. I’m trying to determine what is a moral position and what is an ideological position using the categorical imperative.

"What if everyone acted like that?"

"If everyone acted like that, would the world be a better place?" — creativesoul

So in this case: “the right thing to do” is what? how is someone to carry out that act?

I suggest you re-think this a bit... seriously. You've made several errors here.

You're arguing against The Golden Rule, not the CI. They are not one in the same. They do not mean the same thing to everybody. Some people realize that there's good reason for the two different names! Two different referents. Not really synonyms either.

What case? Sorry, want to be sure we're talking about the same scenario... Set it out for me, if you would...

Do you mean make clearer my point?

I don't think this thread was ever about the categorical imperative, so I am going to withdraw from the discussion.

:up:

Could be fun.

I'll go back and read...

“Thou shall not kill.”

That’s a categorical imperative. True?