True, this. Not any atheists on this thread, but definitely some on the CAFs.
The best way I can think of is to instill in your children the very basic Christian ideal: all life is a gift from God, and the human person is made in the image and likeness of God.
We’re not looking for any evidence that He exists in this discussion, or, as far as I’m personally concerned, any other. If you want to believe in Him, that’s fine.
Sure. And if you want to believe in this phantom atheistic Kolbe, so be it, friend.
It’s certainly heroic.
The fact that I am enjoying this so much ought not be confused with mocking.
Actually, the term, categorical imperative, is Kant’s daunting phrase used to describe the categorical or unconditional nature of moral principles. It simply means that moral principles are not “optional” but have an imperative quality about them that makes them binding on all rational beings. They must be carried out because they are absolutely binding and not simply discretionary or pragmatic guidelines. Kant would argue, against the relativism of many today, that moral principles do not change from person to person or culture to culture. He would hold that true moral principles are universally binding. That is where he applies the universalizability principle as a means of identifying which moral rules truly are universally binding. To get a better sense of whether a rule is a moral one and, therefore, imperative and binding on all, Kant would argue that a person could not reasonably and consistently “universalize” it, understand it to have this universal quality and then deny that one also ought to obey it oneself.
I’m not reducing morality to emotion. I’m using a concept in psychology and how it may result in some one engaging in behaviour that is moral in the absence of a divine command to take that course of action. I’d love to dive a bit deeper, but I think a detailed discussion of studies on moral development may involve some psychological concepts that are to esoteric for general discussion. It does seems that emotions are involved in one’s development of a morality. When there is a perceived universality to the outcome of an action and strong emotional ties then it may be held strongly by the person in what we might call a moral mandate[1]. There are also emotions that may influences one’s view of their actions or the actions of another (disgust, shame, guilt, contempt) that contribute to the construction of one’s morality.
As you can see there are also references to emotion and feelings. But don’t take my word for this; feel free to browse through the research of psychologist and sociologist yourself. You’ll find a reoccurring theme of emotion being included in their behavioural models. These models don’t make reference to divine command or God (though there are also works on the sociology of religion for those that are interested). So these works would seem to be related to part of the original question (on development of morality without divine command).
There’s information that suggest that emotional states and the anticipation of emotional states often influence our choices and actions even if they don’t reach a magnitude that might be labeled as “overtaking.” When looking at how people shape and form their moral behaviour emotion seems to be involved.
I thought you wanted to talk about morality in the absence of divine command. Perhaps I misunderstood your original intention.
Kant’s point (and I presume Charlemagne’s) was that a moral “ought” that overrides emotional intentions does not depend upon divine command but on what he (Kant) calls practical reason. He was attempting to show that we are morally obligated as rational moral agents to will and act in consistency with imperatives on our behavior that are not negotiable and not to be compromised by emotion, but derive purely from reason as the fundamental aspect of what makes us human (rational moral beings). This does not collapse to divine command theory but does retain the “ought” or obligatory aspect that makes moral imperatives binding on all humans.
The above contribution is irrelevant regarding the nature of moral principles because it relies on the genetic fallacy to make a point. The genetic fallacy demonstrates that the origin of an idea or principle says nothing about its truth value. What you seem to be claiming is that emotional influences are essentially what moral behavior is founded upon. That would be like holding that science taught in the educational system is where scientific truth comes from.
You are correct here. Kant’s purpose was to provide positive support for the reasonableness of moral principles and not a negative means to assess particular behavior.
This almost aligns with something said in the earlier referenced material “Moral conviction: Another contributor to attitude strength or something more?” and others in which behaviour rules that are believed to have universal applicability and consistent outcome get elevated to the same level as a hard fact (which may be analogous to an “ought” as used above). I say “almost” because this isn’t from “pure reason.” There is still emotion involved (ex: some one that concludes that torture is “wrong” may still have involved their emotions about torture in their reasoning process ).
It was actually the reference to Christ, not Kant, that was throwing me off.
I hope you’re not suggesting that He was the first to suggest it. Maybe he’d read Confucius: