Presenting, Developing and Defending my Views on Morality

Hello Human

I will start by attempting to answer a question that I consider to be the basis for morality: What is the purpose of a human being, or a sentient being? I consider that question to be important because morality is about what we must do, and what we must do is our purpose, so we must ask what is that purpose.

I argue that human beings, and sentient beings in general have control over thir purpose. As Kant said, they are autonomous, which means they are self-law giving. This means that the purpose of a sentient being is subjective.

Now, this raises a question: How can we establish an objective morality if our purpose is subjective? To that I answer that we must respect Kant's second formulation of the categorical imperative: we must streat others not as mere means but as ends-in-themselves. That means that we must respect the goals others have set for themselves while striving to achieve our own goals, because it would be preferable to maximize the amount of persons accomplishing their goals.

Additionally, I argue that we must have a way to measure how close a person is to flourishing, which is happiness, more specifically how happy a person feels about their actions and identity.

Now one might argue that I only considered the subjective condition for morality, but not the objective one, which is Kant's first formulation of the categorical imperative, which says to act only on that maxim that you can will to be universal. To that I answer that not everyone has the same goals, and situations often differ in relevant ways. Cutting off your hand would not be a problem if you plan to simply doing activities that do not require it, while it would be catastrophic if you want to be a basketball player. Punching an innocent is most definitely not respecting their autonomy, while punching a criminal who plans to kill someone in order to stop them is protecting the autonomy of the person being targeted by the murderer more than it infringes on the autonomy of the murderer.

In order to flourish while respecting or promoting the flourishing of others, some qualities are useful. Those qualities are commonly called virtues.

T Clark

I will start by attempting to answer a question that I consider to be the basis for morality: What is the purpose of a human being, or a sentient being? I consider that question to be important because morality is about what we must do, and what we must do is our purpose, so we must ask what is that purpose. — Hello Human

I don't believe we have a purpose and I don't see how having a purpose would necessarily be relevant to how we treat others.

we must streat others not as mere means but as ends-in-themselves — Hello Human

This basically a restatement of the Golden Rule, which is a good thing.

That means that we must respect the goals others have set for themselves while striving to achieve our own goals, because it would be preferable to maximize the amount of persons accomplishing their goals. — Hello Human

Why does "we must treat others not as mere means but as ends-in-themselves" mean that we must respect the goals of others. How does that lead to "it would be preferable to maximize the amount of persons accomplishing their goals."?

In order to flourish while respecting or promoting the flourishing of others, some qualities are useful. — Hello Human

Respecting the flourishing of others, which may be part of the categorical imperative (I'm not sure), is not the same as promoting the flourishing of others, which it seems to me is not.

180 Proof

:death: :flower:

What is the purpose of a human being, or a sentient being? — Hello Human

"The purpose" for whom?

(Otherwise, Sisyphus' amor fati.)

Cuthbert

"The purpose" for whom? — 180 Proof

True. There is a double meaning. "What [the hell] is the point of my existence?" vs "What are my aims, purposes, projects, goals?"

180 Proof

↪Cuthbert

Thus my allusion to the absurd. The question immediately goes wrong so any answer at best just begs it. And then hitching it to the pragmatically inapplicable vacuous formality of Kant's CI deliberately goes nowhere fast.

Hello Human

I don't believe we have a purpose and I don't see how having a purpose would necessarily be relevant to how we treat others. — T Clark

It seems that we do have a purpose, though it is choosen by the person themselves. You choose your own purpose. We choose our actions.

Having a purpose seems relevant to how we treat others because it says what we should do. The purpose of a knife is to cut, therefore it should cut. If the purpose of life is happiness for example, then we must do as much as we can to be happy, and it's hard to be happy if you disrespect others because they will resent you eventually.

Hello Human

Why does "we must treat others not as mere means but as ends-in-themselves" mean that we must respect the goals of others. How does that lead to "it would be preferable to maximize the amount of persons accomplishing their goals."? — T Clark

My interpretation of it is that we are autonomous beings with our own goals, so we must consider the goals of other people when interacting with them.

Respecting the flourishing of others, which may be part of the categorical imperative (I'm not sure), is not the same as promoting the flourishing of others, which it seems to me is not. — T Clark

Promoting flourishing indeed not a part of the categorical imperative. I only added it because it is possible that teh purpose you have chosen for yourself is to help others accomplish their goals.

My interpretation of the categorical imperative can be reformulated as a respect for the goals of others, and the accomplishment of those goals is flourishing.

What [the hell] is the point of my existence?" vs "What are my aims, purposes, projects, goals?" — Cuthbert

I think that the point of a person's existence is what they choose to do. If they want to use their existence to become a musician, then that is the point of their existence.

T Clark

It seems that we do have a purpose, though it is choosen by the person themselves. You choose your own purpose. We choose our actions. — Hello Human

I don't feel as if I have a purpose. I don't see that as a bad thing. I am responsible for my own actions and I guess I could choose a purpose, but it would seem degrading. Wouldn't having a purpose be the same as being a means to an end rather than and end in myself?

T Clark

My interpretation of it is that we are autonomous beings with our own goals, so we must consider the goals of other people when interacting with them. — Hello Human

I don't get the connection. I can treat someone as an end in themselves without considering their idea of their own purpose.

My interpretation of the categorical imperative can be reformulated as a respect for the goals of others, and the accomplishment of those goals is flourishing. — Hello Human

What if the other person's goal is one that I don't respect. I don't have to support it, but I still need to respect the person.

Hello Human

I don't feel as if I have a purpose. I don't see that as a bad thing. I am responsible for my own actions and I guess I could choose a purpose, but it would seem degrading. Wouldn't having a purpose be the same as being a means to an end rather than and end in myself? — T Clark

I don't get the connection. I can treat someone as an end in themselves without considering their idea of their own purpose. — T Clark

It seems we have a different meaning of the term end-in-themselves. What do you mean by it ?

What if the other person's goal is one that I don't respect. I don't have to support it, but I still need to respect the person. — T Clark

You don't support it, but you still have to respect it if it doesn't do more harm than good.

TheMadFool

What I find interesting and, at the same time, almost revelatory is the simple fact that the two most popular moral theories vying for top position viz. Kantian ethics and utilitarianism are based on either logic (Kantian ethics) or mathematics (utilitarianism). One could, I suppose, hold the view that ethics is mathematical logic in disguise. :lol:

180 Proof

↪TheMadFool

:roll:

Wouldn't having a purpose be the same as being a means to an end rather than and end in myself? — T Clark

:up: Like eusociality, health, fitness, integrity, peace of mind ... which are ends-in-themselves, intrinsic to well being (i.e. flourishing), and not just extrinsic, means-to-ends "purposes" (i.e. "nostalgias" ~Camus). The OP seems to derive a "Kantian CI" from an anachronistic Aristotlean/Thomistic (or at least question-begging occult) "teleology".

T Clark

It seems we have a different meaning of the term end-in-themselves. What do you mean by it ? — Hello Human

To me, the important thing is the idea of using people as a means to an end. That means making decisions about their lives for our own benefit without regard to their preferences or the effects of our decisions on them.

You don't support it, but you still have to respect it if it doesn't do more harm than good. — Hello Human

I guess I'd respect their goals or not based on my own values, not necessarily on their potential effects. Again, I don't see that as particularly relevant to the question. People should be treated with respect. I think that's another way to formulate the categorical imperative.

T Clark

Like eusociality, health, fitness, integrity, peace of mind ... are ends-in-themselves, — 180 Proof

I don't think you're saying that these factors are goals. Are you? If not, I think you and I are in agreement.

180 Proof

↪T Clark

Right. Not "goals"; rather "eusociality, health, etc ..." are functional defects of our species which when neglected or adversely stressed render human beings dysfunctional or worse. This is what I mean by "intrinsic to well being (i.e. flourishing)".

People should be treated with respect. I think that's another way to formulate the categorical imperative. — T Clark

"Whatever is hateful to you, do not do to anyone."
~Hillel the Elder

Whatever is harmful to our species, do not cause to happen to anyone by action or inaction; and help reduce harm whenever doing so foreseeably harms another less than it helps another. — an Epicurean corollary to Hillel's maxim

Hello Human

Like eusociality, health, fitness, integrity, peace of mind ... which are ends-in-themselves, intrinsic to well being — 180 Proof

I think that all you have mentioned here are essential to well-being, so acting towards others in a way that promotes or ar least respects them is an essential part of ethical behavior. Also, those things are all either something we try to attain because of some perceived intrinsic value, or something we want for something else. We want to be healthy because we want to live long, or not to suffer for example. We want peace of mind because we see it as inherently good.

To me, the important thing is the idea of using people as a means to an end. That means making decisions about their lives for our own benefit without regard to their preferences or the effects of our decisions on them. — T Clark

And our preferences are based on what we want to do, someone who likes thinking would prefer spending time alone over going outside for example, so it seems respecting those preferences is the same as respecting their goals.

T Clark

respecting those preferences is the same as respecting their goals. — Hello Human

First of all, no. Preferences are not the same as goals.

And then - I believe that all people are created equal and they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. That among these is the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Approving their choice for what's required for the pursuit of happiness is not necessary. That's sort of the point.

It's not respect for the other person's preferences that's important, it's respect for them.

TheMadFool

I don't feel as if I have a purpose — T Clark

I remember writing about purpose sometime ago in another thread but it doesn't show up in the forum's search. I'll repeat it here if it's of any interest.

The Paradox Of Purpose:

1. Every single organ in our body has a purpose. The eyes to see, the hands to grasp, etc. You get the picture.

2. We know, at least as the status quo, that life is meaningless i.e. life has no purpose. In other words, the whole person, the entire body, taken as a unit, is without purpose.

Conclusion:

3. It is possible for the parts to have purpose but the whole not to possess one.

The universe may lack a purpose, notwithstanding its parts having one.
1y — TheMadFool

What do you think is going on? :chin:

Hello Human

respect for them — T Clark

What do you mean by respect for a person ?

TheMadFool

dysfunctional — 180 Proof

I wonder if this makes sense to you or anyone else but I have a feeling that this :naughty: is us and this :halo: is what we wanna be. Dysfunctional? Normal?

180 Proof

↪TheMadFool

We're not "evil aspiring to be good" or "weak struggling to be strong" or "sick cultivating wellness" ... Rather, Fool, we (philosophers) are simply fools striving to become less foolishly, no? :smirk:

TheMadFool

We're not "evil aspiring to be good" or "weak struggling to be strong" or "sick cultivating wellness" ... Rather, Fool, we (philosophers) are simply fools striving to become less foolishly, no? :smirk: — 180 Proof

Not to say you're wrong but from what I gather, the word out there, is that it's rarest of the rare to find a good person. We either need to redefine dysfunctional and normal or accept that goodness is some kind of debilitating mental disorder. Something's wrong!

TheMadFool

@180 Proof

God created us sick and commands us to be well. — Christopher Hitchens (RIP)

:chin:

180 Proof

↪TheMadFool

You are running away from, rather running towards, my usage of "dysfunctional" to which you're referring and thereby misreading my previous post. I can't follow what you're saying, Fool. :confused:

↪TheMadFool

A favorite "Hitchslap" of mine too – coming & going. :smirk:

TheMadFool

You are running away from, rather running towards, my usage of "dysfunctional" to which you're referring and thereby misreading my previous post. I can't follow what you're saying, Fool. — 180 Proof

Maybe this :point: :naughty: is normal and this :point: :halo: is abnormal. Either that or psychology has the wrong end of the stick. Who the hell is in charge here anyway? Who decides what's normal and what's abnormal?

180 Proof

↪TheMadFool

No one and no one.

TheMadFool

No one and no one. — 180 Proof

Amen!

T Clark

What do you mean by respect for a person ? — Hello Human

Jefferson et. al. put it better than I could - I recognize that all people are created equal and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

T Clark

What do you think is going on? — TheMadFool

Two things. 1) The Mad Fool has a "paradox" obsession; and 2) Having a function is not the same as having a purpose.

TheMadFool

Having a function is not the same as having a purpose. — T Clark

Expand and elaborate please.

Hello Human

Jefferson et. al. put it better than I could - I recognize that all people are created equal and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. — T Clark

So you mean to respect the rights of others. But the pursuit of happiness being one of those rights you have listed, then I don't think we really disagree with each other don't you think ?

Presenting, Developing and Defending my Views on Morality

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions