Does morality have a reference in this world?

[Benadam]

ok, :newidea:I think I got something. Maybe it’s a duh:doh2:

Morals form according to the meaning we attach to creation. Is creation ordered to eternal reality? Then morals have no worldly reference. Is creation ordered to death of the body? Then senses are the proper judge of what’s good. Then the question would be. Does morality have a reference outside of this world? Then again the question would not be asked. I dunno really:shrug:

 

[Ender]

If I am free to violate a law, then it is not a law; the nature of a law (e.g. laws of physics) is to *cause *the action.

It seems as if Kant is playing with the definition of the term"law". What does he mean by “free to violate”? We have driving laws which obviously I may choose to violate; does this fall under the definition of “free to violate” even though I receive a speeding ticket or does this mean civil laws aren’t really laws? Interestingly, if moral laws were inviolate - as are physical laws - then they wouldn’t be moral laws at all because it is only where we are free to violate them that we can be held morally accountable for our choices.

The nature of a physical law may be to cause an action but that is not the nature of civil and moral laws. If Kant is basing his ethics on the necessity that moral laws act like physical laws then his position is stillborn. If he’d analogized them to civil laws we could at least have gotten off the ground.

What is rational for a rational being? To act in such a way that your very action could, through your own doing it, become a universal law.

It seems unlikely that a rational being would come to the conclusion that he should act in a way that is not in his own best interest. The behavior in the animal kingdom is that might makes right; we may not take that to be very moral but it is certainly rational. Where is the rationale that I should do something for you that is bad for me or conversely that I should not do something bad to you that is good for me? Pure rationality leads to mere consequentialism: anything is good if its consequences are beneficial … think robots with AI. It’s not clear that they’d come up with “Do unto others …”. I believe Kant’s world would be ruled either by the strong or by the Borg.

Ender