Where did I say I disagreed with my own statement? — Corvus

Didn't you say that a person with locked-in syndrome has the right to terminate his life?

Do you agree with him? — Corvus

I cannot find a flaw in his argument. Could you? I am not saying that I agree with his metaphysics though but that is a different topic.

I would presume Kant would say, well by rational thinking there is no evidence torturing would save anyone's lives. — Corvus

Let's assume it does.

So you disagree with your own statement?

I was not attacking, but asking about it. Could we not discuss the points based on the natural logic and reasoning? Why Aquinas? We are not going to accept his doctrines if they are based on A <> A and A^~A, are we? — Corvus

As I mentioned Aquinas distinguish between persons and essence.

But you haven't asked Kant, what would be the case torturing the terrorists in person. If you did, he would have said to you "Have you tried all other means to get the information exhaustively? — Corvus

Let's assume that we tried all other approaches.

Are you sure the terrorists you are wanting to torture are the real terrorists? — Corvus

Let's assume so for the sake of argument.

I already have added the more explanation of how those factors do hamper coming to moral judgements with your example of the lock-in man. Hence you must use reasoning only on the judgement. — Corvus

And I already mentioned that you cannot have a situation without considering these factors. According to Kant killing a human is not allowed in all circumstances. It is the person feelings in the case of locked-in syndrome that matters in this situation. As far as I recall, you agree that it is the right of a person with locked-in syndrome to decide about his life. This is against what pure reason suggests.

:up:

Going back to MoK's point, Kant would ask you, if torturing was the last resort for the resolution. Have you tried all other means to get the information out? — Corvus

According to Kant, killing, torturing, etc. are objectively wrong by this he means that these actions are not allowed under any circumstances. There is no room for discussion here.

The problem with torturing to get the information out, is that it may still fail to get the information even you have tried with utmost degree, if they firmly withhold the information. — Corvus

Torturing of the terrorist is allowed by all means if we can save lives of individuals. The torturing is morality right even if we assume that the terrorist may withhold the information.

This is why you need reasoning. You will know that torturing is not the only way to get the information. You could have good conversation with them, and persuade them to give you the information from their own accord. It is all about utilising your practical reasoning wisely and skillfully. — Corvus

I wanted to say:"My point is that pure reason cannot resolve moral problems but adds problems." "Can" is a typo that I corrected it in the post.

You build the situation with your perception and reasoning, not with feelings and beliefs. Feelings, beliefs, opinions and interests blind you from the reality preventing you from making right decisions and judgements. — Corvus

I asked you this before: Could you provide an example of a situation in which feelings, belief, opinions, and interests do not play a role?

It's seen as supporting the thesis that God is always everywhere, all at once, and so not a thing within space and time. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I still don't understand how the fact that God is His own essence means that God is always everwhere.

"share the same essence" sounds unclear here. If MoK and John share the same essence which is human, has minds, 2 arms and 2 legs, does it mean MoK is John? Are they the same being? — Corvus

As I mentioned Aquinas makes a distinction between persons of the Trinity and essence. You need to familiarize yourself with the concepts of person and essence before you can attack it.

However, you seem to be claiming that feelings, beliefs, opinions and interests are the basis of morality. Whereas my point is that pure reason is the foundation of morality. — Corvus

My point is that pure reason cannot resolve moral problems but adds problems. Think of a terrorist who put a bomb in a location that we are not aware of. The only way to know where the bomb is is through torturing the terrorist. According to Kant, torturing is not allowed. What would you do in such a situation? Wouldn't you torture him to find the bomb and save the lives of many? I would, and my decision in these circumstances is based on mere opinion, saving the lives of many worth torturing the terrorist.

You must be able to put them aside, and rely on reason only on the decisions. — Corvus

My point is that we cannot put them aside when we want to decide since they are factors that build the situation. No factor, no situation, and nothing to decide.

Yes, if we accept that those words were the last ones Jesus said.

Theothanatology — Gregory

What do you mean?

This was taken as referring to the fact that God (and God alone) is subsistent being (everything else being contingent and relying on God as its ground, even things like number, shapes, etc., which are not entirely intelligible in themselves, but only as a part of the entire Logos). — Count Timothy von Icarus

Oh, I was not aware of that interpretation. I, however, disagree that numbers, truth, etc. are contingent things.

Psalm 139 is often interpreted in this way as well. It is God alone who most properly is, ipsum esse subsitens. — Count Timothy von Icarus

How could that, ipsum esse subsitens, be a good interpretation of Psalm 139? I am familiar with Aquinas's argument that God's essence and existence are one.

Likewise, it is God, as universal ground and source of being in who "we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28). — Count Timothy von Icarus

It is off-topic, but I think people often confuse God, the creator, with the Mind, an omnipresent, changeless entity that experiences and causes.

While such an interpretation is now sometimes presented as being "medieval scholastic innovation," generally by those with an anti-philosphical bent, or particularly "Roman Catholic," one can find it in the earliest Christian commentaries on Exodus (e.g. Origen, the Cappadocians, etc ) and in earlier Jewish commentaries (e.g. Philo), and its suggested more explicitly in some of the later Biblical literature included in the Septuagint. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I was not aware of them. Thanks for letting us know.

It is saying, 3 is 1 and 3 is not 1. — Corvus

I already answered that. According to Aquinas, there is a difference between persons of the Trinity and God's essence. I am not saying that his argument is objection-free, but saying that any valid objection requires a good understanding of the terms he uses. He is saying that three conscious persons build the Trinity, namely Father (who is the highest according to Jesus and this is problematic), Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. These three persons, however, share the same essence, which means each person is God yet different from the other persons.

I agree. This doesn't make morality, or the value of life subjective, it just makes it contingent. — KantRemember

It makes the value of life subjective as well, by subjective, I mean that people have different opinions or feelings on the value of life. A person who is highly depressed feels that life is very awful. Life not only has no value for him, but it also is like a trap that he wants to get rid of by committing suicide, for example. The same person feels differently about life when the depression is gone.

The life value of life is contingent on the fact we care about our own wellbeing, it's true that we care about our wellbeing... and so on. — KantRemember

Yes, the value of life is contingent on the fact that life is not possible if we feel differently about it.

Under the framework of valuing life, suffering is not subjectively bad, it impedes the wellbeing of life which, if we value life, is bad. What's subjective is the justification behind it, whether the teleology justifies the action.
I'd agree that "the suffering of X" is subjectively justifiable, but not that suffering in and of itself is good. — KantRemember

If the suffering of X is justifiable, then morality is subjective.

Not true. Disagreement on any act, X, is independent from whether X is objective or subjective. What's subjective is the belief about the nature of X, not the nature of X itself. — KantRemember

I think the source of our disagreement is that we disagree on what we mean by objective and subjective. Do you mind providing your definition of them? I define morality as subjective if it is based on feelings, opinions, interests, and beliefs. Morality is objective if it is on pure reason.

True, actually. We disagree on whether the act is right or wrong in themselves AND whether the justification behind the act is right or wrong. — KantRemember

Therefore, morality is subjective, given my definition of subjective.

Marx'd love you. — KantRemember

I love him as well.

I mean isn't that what evolution is for? The natural order of life is to ensure that the best fitted survive, the ethical difference is that nature isn't a moral, rational agent. Morality doesn't apply to it. — KantRemember

Correct, evolution does its job but we can expedite the process of reaching Utopia as well. We are rational agents. We know what we need and what we don't need.

Your second sentence is the logical succession of the first. — KantRemember

No, my point is that according to Kant's first formulation, we can only conclude that killing is wrong if we accept that life is valuable. According to this formulation, one has to universalize a maxim, killing a human is right, to see whether the action that maxim refers to is right or wrong. He then argues life is not possible if we universalize this maxim. He then concludes that killing a human is objectively wrong. There are two issues here: 1) Why should we universalize a maxim to realize that the action that maxim refers to is right or wrong, and 2) How could we conclude that killing a human is wrong from the fact that life is not possible if we universalize the maxim? This conclusion however only follows if life has a value.

You state that you wouldn't kill a human being if life is valuable and Kant's imperatives state that if life is valuable we shouldn't kill human beings. — KantRemember

No, my point is that he tries to give a general formulation that killing a human is objectively wrong. I think that killing a human is permissible, given the circumstances, so no, I don't think that killing a human is objectively wrong. To me, life, to be clear, is generally valuable, but there are cases in life where living just involves suffering. Think of a person with locked-in syndrome, a person who is terminally ill, etc. To me, killing these individuals is right if they want to terminate their lives. Following Kant, we are not allowed to kill any of these individuals, which to me is cruel.

His formulation doesn't just apply to killing, but moral actions as a whole - it's something that provides framework and consensus - granted, you're not compelled to accept it and it doesn't solve all moral qualms but something is better than nothing I suppose. — KantRemember

But he and his followers think that his formulation provides a reason for objective morality. That is something that I disagree with for the given reasons.

Feelings, beliefs, opinions and interests often trap you in illusions which blocks your freedom. — Corvus

These factors define a situation where a decision is required. Freedom is different from free will. By free will, I mean the ability of an agent to decide when he is uncertain about what to do. I discussed this topic in another thread.

Another problem with moral judgements based on feelings, beliefs, opinions and interests is that you will be facing moral conflicts and dilemmas within yourself. — Corvus

No problem with that. I can decide in any situation since I am a free agent.

Going back to Trinity, it seems to have some logical problems. Saying that three entities are one is like saying 3 =1 or 1+1+1 = 1, which is not true. — Corvus

It is not like that. Christians are aware of this and they distinguish between persons of the Trinity and God's essence. I invite you to read this article if you are interested in the topic.

No problem. I will wait for your reply.

When you make moral judgements, you need all the facts that you will need to consider, reason and make judgements. You don't just judge on the moral cases with your fleeting feelings, beliefs and opinions and interests. That would be a disaster in the judgements with no knowledge about even what is involved. No one will approve moral judgements based on feelings, beliefs, interests and opinions. — Corvus

I asked whether you could give an example of a situation in which feelings, interests, beliefs, and opinions do not play a role.

Evolution is a theory or hypothesis that animals biological organs and bodies change to adapt for the environments they live in. It doesn't apply to human minds, morality or even biology. — Corvus

Could humans survive and extend to such an extent without having the ability to think? Once, you have an agent with a rational ability, then she/he asks all sorts of questions and tries to rationalize things.

By all means please. Thank you for your offer. — Corvus

Luke 23:46: "Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.” When he had said this, he breathed his last." So according to Luke 23:46, these words are the last words that Jesus said. According to Matthew 27:46-50, Jesus's last words were the verse which is the subject of discussion of this thread.

Their point of view on the matter would be more faith based system, which will not go well with rational arguments, I would guess. — Corvus

They have all sorts of arguments for the existence of God. I can recall a few names such as Aquinas, Anselm, and Augustine as theologians and philosophers. Anselm's argument for the existence of God is already the subject of a thread in this forum. I wanted to get involved in that discussion but unfortunately, my time was short.

I am not familiar with the detail of the theological side of the arguments. But you, as a confessed agnostic, seem to be very much familiar with the theological theories and knowledge, which gives impression that sometime in the past, you might have been a faithful and loyal Christian who attended church studying the doctrine. — Corvus

I was just discussing different topics with Catholics a long time ago. The knowledge that I gathered is the result of my discussion with them.

Morality as a whole depends on agency and conscious beings, viz., rocks aren't moral or immoral, they're amoral, they just are. The objectivity of morality, however, is contingent on the valuing of life (or wellbeing) - and to reiterate, by 'value' I don't mean conscious intent. — KantRemember

Thanks for the elaboration. I agree that morality (not objective morality) is contingent on the value of life. But I think the value of life also is contingent on the fact that we are social animals and could not have survived if we had lived separately or had different opinions about the value of life.

To give an example of X and Y: Iff we value well-being (X), then it is objectively true that suffering is bad (for the well-being of life) (Y) — KantRemember

It just follows that suffering is subjectively bad. Consider the example of the terrorist that we discussed. The well-being of a person is a matter of opinion if he threatens the well-being of others.

I think in using the word understanding there are two underlying assertions - we could take understanding (of morality) to mean an understanding that an action in particular is right or wrong - which is what I was referring to with my Amazonian example, or an understanding of morality conceptually. — KantRemember

Correct. People did not have a conceptual understanding of what morality is yet they avoided certain acts like killing individuals of the same tribe. My point is that this disposition was mainly due to their feelings, interests, opinions, or beliefs.

Right or wrong, should or shouldn't, better or worse, all of these are in having agency - following your feelings and interests is still behaviour predicated in the assumption that whatever you're feeling is either right or wrong. — KantRemember

I agree that feelings, opinions, interests, and beliefs play an important role in morality.

Objectivity doesn't entail the compulsion to act in such a way that aligns with it, or that humans would agree on it. — KantRemember

Here I disagree. An action is subjective if humans do not agree on whether the action is right or wrong.

Over millennia, we agreed, explicitly, or implicitly, that cannibalism is bad for the survival of our species, that slavery is bad, and I'm sure even today nobody agrees that war is good, it just so happens that the teleology behind is what we disagree on, not the act in itself. — KantRemember

Cannibalism yes, it is vanquished. However, we still deal with human terrific. Capitalism as I mentioned is a weak form of slavary. War is unavoidable because people have different opinions, feelings, beliefs, and interests. So no, we disagree on whether different acts are right or wrong in themselves.

What I mean is that sociology and morality/ethics are different subjects. A ethics professional would not be a qualified sociologist and vice versa. — KantRemember

That I understand. But my point is that social change or shape is due to the interests, opinions, beliefs, and feelings of the individuals that live in a society. These factors are the same factors when it comes to morality.

' A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats is weakest members ' - Ghandi or something — KantRemember

Well, I think there shouldn't be any weak or strong in a great nation.

I'd like to think most of us would agree that mass selective reproduction and weeding out those deemed to be genetically inferior is highly unethical. — KantRemember

I disagree. We cannot possibly reach Utopia if we allow the breeding of those people who have genetic problems with the rest of the population. We have to deal with murder, selfishness, etc. all the way otherwise.

I'm likely in less of a position to answer than Corvus, but if I may, I presume it boils down to the consideration of not how our actions effect ourselves, or the people we care about for that matter, but everybody. Your example exemplifies exactly why killing a human isn't *generally* considered the right thing to do. Under Kant, it is wrong. I'm unsure if you've seen the movie Purge, but this highlights how, on broad scale, the permission of theft, murder, and other heinous acts are detrimental to society and life. And to your last statement, that falls in line with what I was saying earlier, life inherently values life - the acceptance of the axiom that life is inherently valuable is necessary for life to exist, and to continue existing, even though this may not be a conscious acceptance, we imply that we accept it by living, to live and to state that you don't care would be paradoxical. And not only this, it's also a biological imperative, otherwise the life wouldn't evolve and reproduce. From the acceptance of this, the rest follows. — KantRemember

My point is that we can conclude that killing is wrong based on Kant's formulation if we accept that life is valuable. Well, I wouldn't simply kill a human if life is valuable though. So I don't understand why we should follow his formulation if we accept that human life is valuable.

The concept Evolution is purely for the biological sense for the developments and changes of the bodily organs and their capabilities of the animals. Evolution is not a concept to be used for the moral judgements.

Applying the concept Evolution to the other domain of knowledge than its original use and application would be classed as misusing the concept. — Corvus

We are what we are because we have evolved as social animals. Human life is valuable to us because we could not have survived if we had another opinion on this.

I will try to come back on the other points you asked in the post as time permits here. Later~ :wink: — Corvus

Cool. I will be waiting for your response. :)

Here, the premise, " if He and God are one", seems not true. — Corvus

Or maybe they are one but Jesus has never said those words. So who knows!? Other books of the Bible mention that Jesus said other things when He was on the Cross. I can find it for you if you are interested.

But you must not take everything what the Bible says as truth. — Corvus

That means that the Bible is not the words of God. I have no problem with this but Christians do not agree with this.

In order for you come up with the premise, you must have demonstrated in logical manner what "A and B are one" implies here. He and God are one? In what way do you think it is the case? — Corvus

I have a problem with the Trinity doctrine. Trinity is a doctrine in which there are three persons, each has their own consciousness and identity yet are not separate beings. I don't think that is possible. They may be united in a sense but that is not what Christians believe. Here I am not discussing the Trinity doctrine but arguing that that Jesus cannot be abandoned if we accept the doctrine of the Trinity.

How do you test something without reasoning? Test requires reasoning. Feelings, beliefs, opinions and interests cannot carry out testing on anything. — Corvus

If life is precious to me then I simply don't kill. I don't need Kant's first formulation to realize this.

Good and happiness are the goals of life and conducts. Good and bad are the value of judgements. Happiness is also a concept. It is not just a feeling. — Corvus

I asked for a definition of good and bad. Happiness is of course a feeling.

They don't. In most cases, they are irrational, groundless and inexplicable in their causes and origins. — Corvus

Can you define a situation in which feelings, opinions, interests, and beliefs are not involved? Just give me an example.

"Life is precious" is inferred maxim from the other maxim "Thou shall not kill." It is all about reasoning and inferring in rational way. It has to do with the other maxims "Harming others is bad.", and obviously killing the innocent life is related to harming others, and so forth. — Corvus

These are not arguments.

Evolution and opinions have nothing to do with the maxims and moral codes which are objective in moral judgements. — Corvus

Evolution has a very important role in shaping us as creatures as we are. We have common opinions about all maxims because of evolution and not objective morality. Evolution was in place when humans had no concept of objective morality.

Conditional Objectivity is state of objectivity that is contingent on predefined conditions or framework(s). That is to say, if X, then it is objective that Y. Y would be conditionally objective, with the condition being X. — KantRemember

Are you saying that objective morality depends on the situation? If not, do you mind elaborating and giving examples of X and Y?

An understanding of morality is not needed to abide by it. — KantRemember

Quite oppositely, an understanding of morality and good linguistic skills are required to obey morality. How could one obey morality if he has no understanding of it? Linguistic skills are also required to pass the knowledge of morality from one generation to another. A rational agent who is not mentally evolved to understand morality just follows his feelings and interests.

Morality is the principles by which right and wrong are judged. — KantRemember

Correct.

A tribal community in the amazon unexposed to the idea of morality could still act moral (or immoral) based on the actions they do. — KantRemember

They mainly act based on feelings and interests.

The conflict between human beings is very much a real thing, but this does not undermine the idea of (conditional) objective morality. — KantRemember

It does undermine the idea of objective morality. In all conflicts there are two sides each believes they are right and doing right. All conflict would be resolved if people as rational agents agree on objective morality. I still do not know what you mean by conditional objective morality though.

By equal treatment I'm going to assume you mean equitable treatment, but to answer your question, I'd say because human beings, while rational, are selfish. — KantRemember

We have many bad genes that are hidden and circulate in the human population. Selfishness is related to one gene. Psychopaths have another common gene. Some people are not intelligent enough to understand morality. And many others. The only way to get rid of these bad genes is to either monitor unborn children and abort those who have bad genes and disallow people with bad genes to have a baby otherwise we have to deal with this problem that there is no solution for it. Whether people ethically have the right to follow this approach is subject to discussion.

I'm unsure as to why we haven't evolved to otherwise yet, I doubt I'm qualified to answer, but one thing is for sure, throughout history, we've seen a gradual progress towards better societies, and better laws that govern us, this at least implies that there is some standard. — KantRemember

Yes, I agree that we had some gradual progress towards better societies.

I agree, there are. All this does, however, is highlight that there a yet flaws and iniquities in our nature, its a matter of sociology *and/or capitalism if you ask Marx* rather than morality. — KantRemember

Morality is a very crucial concept when it comes to any society. I don't see how one can divorce sociology and morality.

As much as humanity can function under such conditions, it does not mean that it should, or that it is beneficial for the interdependent wellbeing of those in such a system - there is a reason why we progressed from slavery and accepted it as abhorrent. — KantRemember

Yes, we shouldn't live under such conditions. But the question is why we still do. I think that Capitalism is a form of weak slavery. The minority takes advantage of the situation and gets the most profit while the majority just receives a minimal. All intellectual products are confiscated by the minority. The majority have no right to have a secure job and life. Etc.

It's not just true if we live in a Utopia, but also true if we wish to better as a species, or care for our wellbeing, and everybody cares for their wellbeing, and by care I do not mean conscious intent, but goal-directed behaviour, life values life, its inherent. Even still, if everybody abided by the moral laws within a system, then a utopia would be the end result - think of Kant's categorical imperatives. — KantRemember

We cannot reach Utopia until there are bad genes that are hidden and circulate in the human population. Once these bad genes are removed either by evolution or by us then we have a chance to live in Utopia. I read about Kant's categorical imperatives and I am discussing his first formulation with Corvus right now. My main problem with this formulation is that he suggests that one has to universalize a maxim to see whether the action that the maxim refers to is right or wrong. I am questioning why we should universalize a maxim to see whether an action is right or wrong. I also have a problem accepting how reaching a problem by universalizing a maxim helps us realize whether an act is right or wrong. Let me give you an example: Consider killing a human is right as a maxim. Now according to Kant, we need to universalize this maxim by this he means that all humans should act according to this maxim to see whether killing humans is right or wrong. Well, of course, there could be no human if everybody attempts to kill another. He then considers this as a problem and then concludes that killing is wrong. This however requires accepting that the existence of humans is objectively right otherwise you cannot conclude that killing humans is wrong.

W/regards to your trolley-problem esque question, that would depend on the ethical framework you abide by, but doing so involves the implication of caring for well-being to some extent. Anyway, pragmatically, I would probably opt. for the option that saves many lives, however, I'm not saying, or necessarily conforming to the idea that, this is the right thing to do. — KantRemember

So do you torture him? Yes, or no?

Allow me to chime in here. — KantRemember

You are very welcome to this thread.

I was recently convinced of objective morality (after being a strong believer in anti-realism) when I was made aware of my conflation between moral subjectivity and conditionally objectivity. — KantRemember

What do you mean by conditional objectivity?

You have to think of morality as a framework by which life abides by. — KantRemember

I don't think that it is morality but "common" interests, beliefs, feelings, and opinions. I used "common" to stress that we are social animals and we could not possibly survive without collaboration. Humans managed to survive and evolve a long time ago when we had no idea about morality. Unfortunately, we are still tribal creatures so we have conflicts in interests, beliefs, feelings, and opinions when it comes to my tribe versus your tribe, my group versus your group, my country versus your country, etc. These conflicts are still the main source of tension between human beings. The conflicts unfortunately even exist within a human group. We still have poor and rich people in many countries while we are familiar with the concept of morality. So the question is why we as rational agents cannot manage to reach a state of harmony where all individuals' needs are fulfilled, all individuals are treated equally, all individuals are governed by universal laws in a united state, etc. I think the answer to this question is that we haven't yet evolved well enough. What do you think?

We, as humans, depend on the well-being of ourselves and each other, that is true of life just as 1+1 = 2 is true of math. — KantRemember

I think you are referring to Utopia. There are still power abuses even in well-developed countries. There is a boss who has all rights to the intellectual properties produced by workers. He is rich and workers just receive minimal wages to survive. He has the right to fire workers. Unfortunately, humanity can function under such a condition. It was working under such a condition and it will.

It is objectively true that preventing suffering is better for the well-being of the human species than allowing it, and by that standard, suffering is bad. — KantRemember

Well, that is true if we live in Utopia. Is that right to torture a terrorist who put a bomb in a location to get information about where the bomb is? You can save many lives just by torturing him. What do you think?

Maxims are good in itself. — Corvus

I don't think that a maxim is good or bad in Kant's terminology. For example, increasing my wealth is a maxim. Kant however provides a test on a maxim, killing a human for example, to see whether the action that maxim refers to is right or wrong. So, I believe that a maxim in Kant's terminology is not good or bad per se without passing the test. It is through the test that Kant concludes that killing is wrong for example. That requires considering killing a human as a maxim and show that it leads to a problem because of the test.

Good is better than bad, and happiness is better than unhappiness by nature. — Corvus

What do you mean by good and bad? Isn't happiness just a feeling?

They make moral judgement not reliable. IOW they hamper and obstruct moral judgements. — Corvus

They define a situation and they are important to consider when it comes to morality.

You seem to be confusing the point of life, and the point of making decision for oneself. Life is precious, and needing to be kept. — Corvus

That, life is precious, is just a mere opinion. That is true that most humans agree on it but that is nothing but a byproduct of evolution. Life is shaped by evolution and those genes that work against life are simply excluded through evolution.

If you are asking about Kant's position on the matter, we need to universalize the moral maxim in order to keep consistency in moral judgements within the society. It would be good for people's lives to be able to live in a fair and orderly society.

Universalizing maxims would also prevent folks trying to overrun the society and harm the other folks by driving their egoistic motives on moral issues. It would be also good to have a society run by rationality in moral laws which will increase the possibility of fairness and justice on moral affairs. — Corvus

Now you are arguing in favor of Consequentialism which is different from objective morality. You didn't justify why such a prescription, universalizing a maxim, is valid. So again, why should we accept such a prescription?

You need to exclude feelings, beliefs, interests and opinions in moral judgements, because they don't belong to morality at all. — Corvus

As I mentioned before, these factors construct a situation in which a moral decision is required so they are relevant to morality. Whether they are all factors or not is the subject of the discussion. I claim that these factors are all we have regarding morality. You claim that pure reason is relevant to morality yet couldn't substantiate this.

When I think about the locked-in man's case again, I realise that no one has the right to judge his case, and tell him what is right or wrong for him to do. He has to decide what is best for him by himself. After all, it is his own life. How did I come to the judgement? From practical reasoning. No feeling, no belief, no opinion and no interest, but from practical reasoning i.e. mulling over the situation. — Corvus

And where is your argument that he has the right to terminate his life? That is a feeling that troubles his life. It is my mere opinion that he has the right to terminate his life. By the way, how about people who are terminally ill? How about adultery? How about killing a serial killer who attempts to kill you?...

The universal law and maxim is from pure practical reason. It is like 1+1=2. Do you want an argument why 1+1=2 is true? You know it by pure reasoning i.e. because you are a human, you know it by nature. No external perception, no experience and no explanation is needed here. The answer is already contained in the maxim itself. — Corvus

Then you need to explain why we should universalize a maxim to see whether an action is right or wrong.

Exodus 3:13-14: "13 Moses said to God, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?”

14 God said to Moses, “I am who I am.[a] This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’"

The ancient moral code "Thou shall not kill." is the universal law, because the majority of the human population living in the world approves it as the law, and the approval is based on the pure practical reason. — Corvus

You didn't answer my question. Let me explain things further to make sure that we are on the same page. According to Kant's first formulation, one needs to universalize a maxim to see whether an action is right or wrong. This is discussed in the article you cited. I am asking why we should accept such a prescription, universalizing a maxim to see whether an action is right or wrong.

They don't warrant objectivity. — Corvus

Yes, but they are very important. Exclude them from human nature to see what is left. They are the main forces in our nature while rationality is only a guide.

Morality implies objectivity. — Corvus

Well, that is the subject of discussion. I don't think so though.

To judge whether the locked-in man should die or not, you must think carefully on all aspects of the situation, whether indeed dying would be the best option for him or not under moral reasoning. It is not a simple matter of feeling or believing that the man should die for his own good. — Corvus

Quite oppositely, it is a matter of what he is feeling. Keeping him alive is like torturing him. He wants to die. He is the only person who has the right to decide about his life. Therefore, it is our responsibility to assist him in terminating his life if he wants it.

In this type of real life case, some serious thinking and reasoning would be involved in the moral judgement. The final judgement must be based on the objectivity of morality which would involve not just the man, but also the family of the man, and the society he lives in. But most importantly, by the universal law and category imperative, thou shall not kill, which comes from the ancient moral and religious code in the whole world. — Corvus

Yet, you need to provide an argument for why killing a human is objectively wrong in all circumstances. Needless to say, the God of the Old Testament commanded to kill all people including innocents, and just keep virgin girls for yourself elsewhere (Numbers 31:17-18). So I am wondering how you could explain such a conflict.

You cannot find the solid ground, because you are not taking the universal law and moral code "Thou shall not kill." into account, which is the most critical core of morality. — Corvus

I am looking for an argument and not a command cited in the Bible.

As said above, beliefs, feelings, opinions and interests has no objectivity, and has nothing to do with morality. — Corvus

Well, these factors define a situation without them discussing morality is nonsense.

If matter is not what the mind directly experiences then it is something else, let's call it X. X has to exist objectively though otherwise the experiencing is not possible. X however has properties that cause our experiences to have features, so-called Qualia.