The c.i. Is not an application to the world; it is a command of reason, — Mww

Is “command” correct, a command of reason? Would you stand by that? Because isn’t reason a universal human faculty and from that comes the ability to choose between possible outcomes? It’s always a choice, unless you live by an stablished maxim, which is what cultures are. Can reason command anything?

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 — Echarmion

It seems to me that the one thing we all have in common is reason. Reason cannot very according to culture, can it? There are no degrees of reason like skin colour for instance.

Edit: sorry, I might have misread you there. It as in response to this.

“ 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.”

My query is that if one should be able to marry whoever one wants, and that is a universal maxim, is it moral if it involves marriage between an adult and a child in a culture that approves of it?

the c.i. may be a command of reason, but it depends on the reason. — tim wood

Absolutely. In other words.......be careful what you wish for.

If it’s a command of reason then why so many bad acts in the world? A reason for doing something isn’t the same as reason/rational is it?

Can reason command anything? — Brett

Not really. A command of reason is just a metaphysical precept (Kant calls it a formula), that grounds stuff like duty, respect, self-obligation, the principle of law. It’s a guide for a particular manifestation of subjective moral determinations, a priori. And I stand by that, even if I haven’t always complied with it.

Because isn’t reason a universal human faculty and from that comes the ability to choose between possible outcomes? — Brett

Reason, the composite rational methodology, is a universal human condition, yes, but humans don’t use reason, the active procedural faculty, the same universally.

Proper morality does not choose between outcomes; it decides the one outcome that conforms to the agent’s moral constitution. Kant calls it the worthiness of being happy, but I can leave that be, myself.

If it’s a command of reason then why so many bad acts in the world? — Brett

Because “bad” is relative.

but humans don’t use reason, the active procedural faculty, the same universally. — Mww

Any proof of that?

Any proof of that? — Brett

Nope. Speculative epistemology holds no proofs. Examples of it......well, there lots of that, from which valid inductive inferences can be drawn.

Proper morality does not choose between outcomes — Mww

That’s not what I meant. Part of our reason is the ability to choose between two possible outcomes. That’s what makes us free, as opposed to animals. Being free we can make a moral choice. We can make the wrong one as well. If C.I. is at the command of reason then why the wrong choice?

but humans don’t use reason, the active procedural faculty, the same universally. — Mww

Okay, then can you give examples?

Only act in a way that you would be happy with if it was applied to you. Applying this to every action then makes it a moral action. This does not mean that some actions applied to you will be necessarily agreeable. True? But they may still be moral actions.

Edit: sorry poor logic there, didn’t think it through properly.

Well, @Jack Cummins, I'm in agreement with you regarding the categorical imperative - it basically says that if the answer to "what if everybody did x (an act)?" is something odd/strange/absurd in some sense then x is wrong and if the answer is not like that then it's right.

On the issue of same-sex marriage, the question is, "what if everybody chose same-sex marriage?" Well, what would happen? Any ideas?

Also, I want to bounce my thoughts on the matter off of the two of you and others too if they're reading this.

First off, I believe Kant wanted to ground ethics in logic and my take on that is Kant's theory of morality makes immorality a logical contradiction - absurd - or is the other way round??!!

The classic example in Kantian ethics is about thievery. The categorical imperative requires us to ask, "what if everybody were stealing?". This leads to a contradiction, that between theft being prohibited by our common agreement in re private property and then sanctioning it. It's impossible to talk of private property when you allow stealing. This is the essence of Kant's theory (for me at least).

Coming to the matter of same-sex marriages, for a Kantian perspective one would have to first ask the question, "what is marriage?"

If you say marriage is to have children then the Kantian position would be that same-sex marriages is immoral because they can't produce children. There's a contradiction there - marriage is to have children and same-sex marriage that can't produce children.

However, if you say marriage is to find love then Kant would, in my humble opinion, not be able to raise moral objections to same-sex marriage for no contradiction exists.

:chin:

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

Are morality and ideology different.

Is the categorical imperative an ideological concept? — Brett

One cannot move away from what counts as acceptable/unacceptable thought, belief, and/or behaviour, for that standard directly influences one's own thought, belief, and actions, both deliberate and not. All things moral are about acceptable/unacceptable thought, belief, and behavior. Ideology is not always.

So the proof of the moral rests in the absurdity of the contradiction?

I feel that morals are grounded in ethics, and suspect that morals can become modified by cultural conditions, hence slightly different takes on right and wrong among different cultures. It strikes me that culture is ideology and therefore morals are collective, not individual. Otherwise there exists a threat to stability.

So ideology is a set of ideas that bends morals to suit its intent. In the end those morals appear as maxims to support that ideology.

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. — Brett

But an ideology never actually has complete control over your thoughts. Ideologies don't permanently turn people into zombies. The abstract ability to choose is still there.

If we stay with Kant, it doesn't make much of a difference whether you act in accordance with some interpretation of biblical teaching or on a principle of pure Hedonism. Neither would conform to the CI, and so neither would be moral.

It seems to me that the one thing we all have in common is reason. Reason cannot very according to culture, can it? There are no degrees of reason like skin colour for instance. — Brett

That is certainly the Kantian position.

My query is that if one should be able to marry whoever one wants, and that is a universal maxim, is it moral if it involves marriage between an adult and a child in a culture that approves of it? — Brett

That depends on what reason tells you about children and their reason. Do you include children in your notion of all subjects? If yes, then could this be made a universal law, even from the perspective of the children?

In this I regard the child as not having a choice.

In this I regard the child as not having a choice. — Brett

In that case, you have found a contradiction. The maxim that everyone should marry who they choose, including children, includes a contradiction because it robs the children of that very choice. It cannot be universalised and hence is not moral.

But an ideology never actually has complete control over your thoughts. Ideologies don't permanently turn people into zombies. — Echarmion

If I consider Catholicism and Marxism as ideologies then I see people very much under control, when to go against the ideology means you may burn in hell or end up in a gulag. I might add for consideration the Stockholm Syndrome.

In that case, you have found a contradiction. The maxim that everyone should marry who they choose, including children, includes a contradiction because it robs the children of that very choice. It cannot be universalised and hence is not moral. — Echarmion

So then it may be more of an ideological position.

I think that all cultures are ideological. They always have been. But today there are cultures within cultures within cultures. Each have their own ideology. How can the idea of moral actions based on C.I. work in this age?

If we were to follow the strict logic of Kantian logic regarding Kant's ideas about same sex marriage I think that it would be to say that it is wrong.

However, when I was puzzling over this thread when unable to sleep the night before last, I was wondering why Brett was asking about marriage because so many people do not get married any longer, whether straight or gay. Posing this in terms of children, they are being born anyway. When I think of gay marriage the person who comes to my mind is Elton John. Out of the few friends I have who have got married most of the marriages collapsed within a few years and ended in divorce.

I hate to think what Kant would make of all this. I know that many regard the whole state of affairs as an indication of degeneration. So, if anything I would reframe the question in terms of the Kantian categorical imperative: what if one chooses to have relationships with others but abandoning the whole idea of marriage?

So the proof of the moral rests in the absurdity of the contradiction? — Brett

Yes but that's my opinion. Every immoral thought/speech/act can be reduced to a contradiction, in Kant's moral theory, of the kind I demonstrated in my earlier post.

For instance, life has value is a (allegedly) true proposition. If everybody started murdering, it would contradict that true proposition. As per the categorical imperative, the appropriate question is, "what if everybody starts murdering?"

The reason why the question is framed with everybody in mind is that if the question were, "what if somebody starts murdering?" it doesn't lay the necessary foundations for a contradiction because the few (not all) who murder can be thought of as acting immorally. The moment everybody starts murdering, it means life no longer has value and a contradiction surfaces. This is just my opinion by the way.

I forgot to say about the categorical imperative in relation to stealing. If it was taken to a universal point of view it would lead to a conclusion of an end to property and private possessions. That is interesting. We might usher in the world with no possessions suggested by John Lennon's, 'Imagine'.

So, if anything I would reframe the question in terms of the Kantian categorical imperative: what if one chooses to have relationships with others but abandoning the whole idea of marriage? — Jack Cummins

My feeling is that it would lead to a breakdown in the structure of the family. That would be a concern, and a contradiction, if you thought family was an essential element of society.

This is just my opinion by the way. — TheMadFool

It works for me.

Part of our reason is the ability to choose between two possible outcomes. — Brett

Part of, yes. Choosing between two outcomes reduces to cognizing a relation between means and ends. Fishing, say, with worms gives one possible outcome, fishing with lures gives another possible outcome. This part of our reason is purely theoretical, indicating the outcomes are not actually within our control. And yes, we are not restricted in our choice of bait, but we also have no promise of success in fishing.

The other part of our reason is the purely practical, in which the ends are given necessarily from the means, which is the ground of the c.i. itself, re: “act only....”. Here, we have no choice in our actions, but we have splendid success in our morality.
—————

That’s what makes us free, as opposed to animals. — Brett

We are not free, nothing makes us free, and this has nothing whatsoever to do with animals. I find no profit in comparing my inner workings to a cow’s, and question those that do. I’ve found them to be terrible philosophers.
—————

Being free we can make a moral choice. We can make the wrong one as well. If C.I. is at the command of reason then why the wrong choice? — Brett

We make moral choices because our very nature imbues us with moral agency, plain and simple.

We make wrong moral choices because we, as humans, are susceptible to a plethora of opposing interests, desires, wants and needs.

Commands of reason inform as to what an act ought to be, but has no power to force the act to be done.
————-

How can the idea of moral actions based on C.I. work in this age? — Brett

Cultures have changed, individual human members of cultures have not. There has been no significant human evolutionary changes in the mere 250 years or so, since the Enlightenment and with it, Kantian moral philosophy. No moral disparity between ripping off a farmer’s wife over a couple potatoes then, or ripping off a kid over an x-box now, nor between paying yourself for the wife’s potatoes and helping the proverbial lil’ ol’ lady cross Broadway in midtown.

One shouldn’t conflate the moral with the ethical.

It works for me. — Brett

Really? I didn't expect that! Great! I would've liked to hear your side of the story though.

You say that the categorical imperative in the instance of the choice not to have sexual
relationships but not marriage would result in the end of the family. That is true, but I am not trying to frame it as an abstract question but a real way in which people have made choices. Therefore, I was suggested that it is far more important to consider than the option of same sex marriage which is far less common.

You say that you accept the Madfool's opinion but he has voiced a number of points, so I am unclear what is it is exactly that you agree with.

I still do not understand your concern about ideology over morality . If anything I would say that the possible problem with ideology over morality is that it is abstract and avoids details and particulars.

But, my own view of the weakness of the idea of the categorical imperative is that it is too abstract and avoids the particulars. Life comes with variable details which sometimes calls for looking at the exceptions to the rule. And I am thinking in terms of ends, more than means.The categorical imperative can be a yardstick but only one measure for viewing dilemmas in the personal and social sphere.

In terms of your insistence on the question of morality or ideology I would say that the term morality seems to be too personal and the term ideology as too impersonal. I think that the more all-encompassing term for weighing up the personal and the universal, and the tensions between the two is the term ethics.

You're arguing against The Golden Rule, not the CI. They are not one in the same. — creativesoul

My understanding of the CI is "do any action if and only if you think everyone in the world would not disbenefit from it, even if all and everyone did the same action."
Please agree with me if you find my quote acceptable, or true. If this is not acceptable, and not true, please respond with your working definition of CI written in your response here.