Throughout the whole thread the ambiguous use of the golden rule and categorical imperative as if they were identical has been so prominent that it has skewed argument.

I feel that morals are grounded in ethics, — Brett

The distinction between morals and ethics is ill-conceived. They are both one in the same thing.

The two terms morals and ethics are sometimes interchangeable but I think the first one is used more to convey a personal or system of conduct. The term ethics s not different outrightly but has a subtlety less judgemental stance. So, ethics is often preferred in discussions about social issues, looking at the various angles of view in a critical way.

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. — god must be atheist

Kant doesn't talk about benefits or disbenefits when establishing the groundwork for the CI. And it's also important to consider that the CI is not a tool to judge outward actions.

There are several layers to analysis within the CI. The question of whether a maxim includes an implicit or explicit contradiction, i.e. whether it can theoretically be universalised, and the question of whether you would want it to be universalised.

Only the second part is directly reminiscent of the golden rule, and the conceptual basis is different.

I agree with you that Kant is asking about universalisation he is looking about inward aspects of morality. He says that the person committing an act needs to ask, 'Canst thou also will that thy maxim should be a universal law.' Here, he is looking at the importance of the intention of the act from the point of the person committing it. The examples he gives to illustrate his argument are promises and lying.

I struggled through the 'Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals' at an earlier stage in my life and it is extremely difficult, especially as Kant made more than one formulation of his thought. He was coming from within the Christian tradition but attempting to build up a system of reason, which he spoke of as 'a priori' logic. In his other book he uses this logic as a theory of knowledge of God.

It is easy to take Kant's system of thought out of context and I do believe that the originator of this thread used the term in a very vague sense in an initial discussion about gay marriage. It is possible to blend ideas but it is important to understand the original content. As such, the whole Kantian tradition is about the issue of duty and it was in contradiction to this that the whole utilitarian tradition, especially John Stuart Mill developed an emphasis on the importance of consequences.

It is perhaps hard for us in the present age to conceive of a perspective of moral thought based on duty alone. Nevertheless, the real understanding of the Kantian system of thought is based on duty and intention and whereas when are considering the outer consequences of action we are looking through the eyes of the utilitarian perspective which came later. It would be interesting if Kant himself had been able to dialogue with the utilitarians directly.

But unfortunately it is us who have to juggle the Kantian and utilitarianism perspectives for ourselves.

Kant doesn't talk about benefits or disbenefits when establishing the groundwork for the CI. And it's also important to consider that the CI is not a tool to judge outward actions.

There are several layers to analysis within the CI. The question of whether a maxim includes an implicit or explicit contradiction, i.e. whether it can theoretically be universalised, and the question of whether you would want it to be universalised.

Only the second part is directly reminiscent of the golden rule, and the conceptual basis is different. — Echarmion

This somehow expresses a disagreement of how I worded CI.

But... but, you refrained from actually giving your wording of it.

This is not acceptable. As long as we can't agree what CI says, we can't agree whether it differs from, or agrees to, the golden rule.

TheMadFool came up with a definition or wording of CI, and he quotes Jack Cummings as agreed to the following:

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. — TheMadFool

I am not willing to answer the charge that the golden rule is different from the CI, unless we have complete buy in to some wording of CI. I have seen so far two: mine and this, by TheMadFool.

If I take either one as THE commonly accpeted version, and build an argument, then others may say "oh, I did not agree to that definition; your argument, God must be atheist, is invalid, because it assumes I took the quote as accepted, which I did actually not."

This non-agreement of what CI ACTUALLY is, makes the comparison impossible to validate.

Therefore anyone's validation and invalidation is warranted, and we are at the same spot as before the demand to agree on a consensus of what CI means ws made.

But I see that the participants already found the crux why Kant's Categorical Imperative is lame in today's world and in any world, in which the sentient units are diploid creatures.

This is encouraging.

But... but, you refrained from actually giving your wording of it. — god must be atheist

Can't we just use the most common definition?

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.

The distinction between morals and ethics is ill-conceived. They are both one in the same thing. — creativesoul

I don’t agree with you there, but I’m not sure it’s worth it to prove myself right, or you to prove me wrong, in relation to the OP. It’s enough that we agree that we are moral. Assuming you agree with that.

We are not free, — Mww

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

So what determines the action?

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

I agree that we are imbued with moral agency, but that does not give us the answer to a moral dilemma, does it? Don’t you think we have to choose to be moral?

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

Which we have to choose from. Or not. We can even abdicate any responsibility if we choose to.

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

Part of my problem with C.I. was in defining, among my many thoughts, a way of clarifying a C.I. So having the idea of a contradiction works for me as a sort of formula I can apply. Sometimes it seems to be elusive in applying Kant’s formulations.

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. — Jack Cummins

I know many see ethics and morals as synonymous, and use them that way. But I see ethics as the foundation of morals. We evolved into ethical creatures (another discussion altogether).

“ I propose that the capacity for ethics is a necessary attribute of human nature, whereas moral codes are products of cultural evolution.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK210003/

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. — Jack Cummins

I had viewed a moral action and an ideological action as two different things. The moral action was rooted in our sense of ethics, the ideological action rooted in ideas about who we are. A moral act is not carried out with a thought about who we are, who we might become. It is not a means but an end. Ideology is an idea about who we are and what we might be, even who we should be. It is also cultural and varies from culture to culture.

So ideological actions are not necessarily, maybe never, moral. Even though we are moral creatures those morals can take slightly different forms according to them culture. Then they become maxims for that particular culture. So the morals now serve the ideology instead of the other way around.

So then any action taken ideologically is not the same as one that is moral, in the sense of C.I. If one is saying “it’s the right thing to do” in relation to any issue then it seems to me it’s an ideological statement.

In the way which you speak of ideology you could view ideology and the Kantian system of view.

However, I would say that in a consideration of ethical issues the consideration of the universal application of principles is still one that can be applied with caution. For example, getting back to your original query about gay marriage you could ask what would happen if everyone did this, but it is still worth considering that it is highly unlikely that everyone will want a gay marriage. But if we consider specific consequences we are taking the categorical imperative out of its original context.

In the twentieth century we are in the predicament of having centuries of thinkers and writings. This gives us plenty of scope but when we draw upon them it is worth being aware of the original arguments in full and the true historical context. Of course, this could be a whole lifetime of reading. As it is, we still have to think for ourselves in making ethical decisions.

I hope that you are finding the thread discussion content useful generally even if we all seem to be going round in circles, but Kant's ideas are complex, so by initiating one of his main ideas a lot of heated debate was likely to be generated.

In the way which you speak of ideology you could view ideology and the Kantian system of view. — Jack Cummins

If you’re suggesting that the Kantian system could be viewed as an ideology then I would agree. In terms of the C.I. it’s a way of addressing a problem, which is, what actions have moral worth? Of course if one finds nothing in Kant then all bets are off.

I come here these days with a specific purpose, which is to test some of my thoughts and find some redirection. Since putting up the OP I’ve gone back to some reading that has cleared a bit of a path for me.

It may be an indication of the complex world we now live in, and my thoughts about culture and morals and ideology are about that, and that the C.I. may not be good enough to help with the times we live in and how we live in it.

Edit: just on your comment about historical context: I’m guessing that Kant’s knowledge of the world and different cultures would have been very narrow and Eurocentric.

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

So what determines the action? — Brett

Circumstance, usually. And judgement with respect to whatever the circumstance happens to be. Action itself is a posteriori, that is, empirically given as manifest in the world. Morality, taken as a fundamental condition of human nature, does not concern itself with the action, but only with the pure a priori principles to which an action must accord necessarily, in order to claim moral worth for itself.

Only a philosopher examines morality from a metaphysical point of view. Everydayman has no use for such understandings, he being capable of navigating the world without ever questioning exactly how he does it. He may well feel good or bad over something he’s done, but without having the reasons for the source and thereby the construction of those feelings. But under the same circumstance next time, should he do something differently such that the feeling from that action is different, he will recognize that there must actually be reasons, and from differences may then interrogate himself as to their source and construction.
————-

We can even abdicate any responsibility if we choose to. — Brett

No, we cannot. Reason belongs to us necessarily, so whether we admit it or not, we are intrinsically responsible for ourselves in toto, for the excruciatingly simple principle that says reason is itself responsible for every single thing we do. We may very well abdicate that which reason demands, but we cannot deny the responsibility for failing to satisfy such demand. It is impossible, after all, to will that which is beyond the ability to obtain, that being nothing but a mere wish.

So what you’re saying is we’re only free to be human. I’d go along with that.

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law. — Echarmion

Okay, let's work with this. It's great.

Please note: I use the F word. It is not to be rude or obnoxious. It is not to incite offence. It is for the purpose of simplicity of communication. It is also to the point and excludes the need of careful circumdescriptions. Please don't be offended. I'll use the abbreviation "F" for the F-word, to avoid stress and undue shock or offence to good taste.

1. Categorical Imperative (CI) is the golden rule (GR). Not the complete equivalent, but it has the same application in the example below. I will show how both break down in an instance of application, thereby making them fail the claim that they are both universal laws.

1.1. if the person acts agains the golden rule, it acts in ways that he does not want to be acted upon himself.
1.2. CI: If it is an act he does not want to be done to himself, then he is not advocating that everyone should do this. Therefore it breaches the part "It should become universal law".
1.3. Because of 1.1. and 1.2., I maintain that both CI and the GR say the same: only do things that you want others to do.

2. How the GR and CI both break down in one application, therefore they can't be universal.
2.1. Heterosexual males like to F others.
2.2. Heterosexual males don't want to be Fd.
2.3. A heterosexual male will be welcome by a heterosexual female to F her, once the circumstances are favourable.
2.4. A heterosexual male will reject to be Fd by anyone.
2.5.1 Therefore a heterosexual male will act in a way that he does not want to become universal law (both not F and not get Fd)
2.5.2. A heterosexual male will not want to be done to as he does to others.
3. Therefore both the CI and the GR fail in one instance of application
4. Therefore they both (The CI and the GR) fail as universally applicable moral codes.

making them fail the claim that they are both universal laws. — god must be atheist

The GR should never be claimed, logically, as a universal law; a rule is never a law nor universal. It isn’t, for good reason, called the golden law.

The c.i. Is never claimed to be a universal law, at least by its author. It is, in fact because it’s in print, proved impossible that it could ever be a universal law. We are only to act as if our will could create such law for EVERY one.

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law. — Echarmion

c.i. Is never claimed to be a universal law — Mww

We agreed that the CI is to be understood as quoted. I said I will only make arguments on an established description on it that everyone accepts. I accepted the quote's content, and I declared that I will only argue and accept argumengs while considering this meaning to be true as quoted. If you think this is not a good description, then I can't answer you, as I am not willing to go through the tedious process of agreeing on what we actually are arguming about.

The first quote is a universal law. It is expressed by the word "only". If "only" were not there, but the word "sometime", then your opinion would be compatible with this quote.

GR should never be claimed, logically, as a universal law; a rule is never a law nor universal. It isn’t, for good reason, called the golden law. — Mww

The wording of the GR was not agreed upon. So I won't even touch it. I think it goes like this: "You should only do things to others that you are willing to accept others to do to you." Again, ACCORDING TO THIS WORDING, it's a law; because, again, of the word "only".

In my understanding the difference between a rule and a law is that laws don't tolerate exceptions, whereas rules do. Accroding to THIS wording above,the GR is a law, not a rule. You may devise a different wording for it as you please; I go by the above. And the above wording indicates it's a law.