Enough Apologies

Well first of Mills a proponent of utilitarianism held the idea that moral acts should be made in relation to creating the greatest good and reducing the greatest detriment on a societal level. While not based on moral relativism the perception of what is beneficial for the larger good is a matter that is subjective because what would allow for the greatest good can vary depending upon circumstances.

However Kant's categorical imperative hold the idea that there is a moral stance which can be applied categorically to all situations. This is the idea of moral objectivity and rejects the idea that circumstances have any determination of an acts morality.

It is not surprising the Pope quoted Kant since Pope Benedict's biggest issue is the rejection of moral relativism.
 
Know the people folks. I lost a nice job with good benefits because it was outsourced to India. I wound up taking around a 30% pay cut, tech jobs that pay 85K are scarce.
I have indian friends and work with them daily, I don't blame the indian folks, but the employer that outsourced to save money. And it was just to increase profits, they were making good money.
The indian folks are just like me wanting to have a decent life.
I really don't know any muslims, I expect they would not live long among most rednecks in eastern KY, so they wisely stay out I suppose.
 
uscitizen said:
Know the people folks. I lost a nice job with good benefits because it was outsourced to India. I wound up taking around a 30% pay cut, tech jobs that pay 85K are scarce.
I have indian friends and work with them daily, I don't blame the indian folks, but the employer that outsourced to save money. And it was just to increase profits, they were making good money.
The indian folks are just like me wanting to have a decent life.
I really don't know any muslims, I expect they would not live long among most rednecks in eastern KY, so they wisely stay out I suppose.
Click to expand...

if you could save 30% on somthing for the same quality, would you ?
 
bob said:
if you could save 30% on somthing for the same quality, would you ?
Click to expand...
Well it appears that it is not the same quality, more bugs in the code than when we generated it over here. And more delays in getting it fixed. But price over quality any day, right ?
 
Actually read the speech, then comment. It is most definitely a heady over-intellectualized speech regardless of his quoting Kant in it. It will make your mind buzz. Instead of spending hours going on about a speech you have admitted to never reading all because you have heard he quoted Kant. There was actually a bit more to the speech than quoting Kant.

You may take on a whole different opinion of what he said... Who knows, you might even like the Kant quote.
 
Prakosh said:
This is the sign of a bored person who has lost track of what he is arguing about and can come up with no other examples than those exhibited by and reflective of his own selfish desires.
Click to expand...

While I certainly agree that Toby's obsession with homosexual acts is pure projection of his own buried, yet fevered desires, I do question the "selfish" part. Read it again.

Toby seems to be quite the giver!
 
Darla said:
While I certainly agree that Toby's obsession with homosexual acts is pure projection of his own buried, yet fevered desires, I do question the "selfish" part. Read it again.

Toby seems to be quite the giver!
Click to expand...

Toby's in the closet. Many of his posts on FP were homoerotic.
 
Cypress said:
Toby's in the closet. Many of his posts on FP were homoerotic.
Click to expand...

He should just come out. It's no big thing. Maybe if he allows himself to fantasize freely first, it will be a big relief to him. All kinds of sexual conflicts can first be worked out through fantasies.
 
Darla said:
He should just come out. It's no big thing. Maybe if he allows himself to fantasize freely first, it will be a big relief to him. All kinds of sexual conflicts can first be worked out through fantasies.
Click to expand...


LOL

That's our toby. Mr. Closet Homosexual.
 
Damocles said:
Actually read the speech, then comment. It is most definitely a heady over-intellectualized speech regardless of his quoting Kant in it. It will make your mind buzz. Instead of spending hours going on about a speech you have admitted to never reading all because you have heard he quoted Kant. There was actually a bit more to the speech than quoting Kant.

You may take on a whole different opinion of what he said... Who knows, you might even like the Kant quote.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm sure there was "more to the speech than quoting Kant," I even implied as much in my post on the speech. I heard the speech was over a half hour long, hard to believe that anyone could quote Kant for a half hour, but please show me where I said I didn't read the speech because the pontiff had quoted Kant. As far as I know I didn't say that I didn't read it because he quoted Kant. In fact, I said that he had quoted Kant in the speech only to say what I had heard about the speech. And I noted that I wasn't necessarily impressed by the fact that he had quoted Kant. Since I have read Kant, I am not averse to anyone quoting him, in fact if you read all of what I posted here, you saw that I too quoted Kant, so why would the quotation from Kant necessarily send me spinning on one direction or another? But if you can show where I said that I hadn't read the speech because he quoted Kant, please do. I haven't read the speech mostly out of lack of curiosity; I really don't care one way or the other what the pope has to say. I have heard plenty of learned men talk in my time on this planet, ceratin;y not all I would like to have heard, but I have heard some. But right now I'm not in the market for a treatise, no matter how learned, based on what one religious leader thinks about another religion or its leaders. As far as reading goes, right now I am trying to finish several different works and I would rather read the Introduction to the Authoritarian Personality by Theodor Adorno, and then finish a work on Adorno and his ideas. I am also trying to finish Les Miserables and Overthrow so yeah, just tell the pontiff to hold on to his scepter, sooner or later I may get around to him. Until then, I hope it isn't "unacceptable" to comment where I want, I so want to rid myself of my "Junior" status.

In the meantime, I wonder if I will I ever be read with any accuracy here???
 
Last edited:
IHateGovernment said:
Well first of Mills a proponent of utilitarianism held the idea that moral acts should be made in relation to creating the greatest good and reducing the greatest detriment on a societal level. While not based on moral relativism the perception of what is beneficial for the larger good is a matter that is subjective because what would allow for the greatest good can vary depending upon circumstances.

However Kant's categorical imperative hold the idea that there is a moral stance which can be applied categorically to all situations. This is the idea of moral objectivity and rejects the idea that circumstances have any determination of an acts morality.

It is not surprising the Pope quoted Kant since Pope Benedict's biggest issue is the rejection of moral relativism.
Click to expand...

I would submit there is nothing more "subjective" than objectivity.

Here is something to consider from Immanual Kant in the Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals trans. by H. J. Patton in 1948.

If I am not mistaken this is the work in which Kant introduces his categorical imperative. Perhaps if we look at this short passage together with the footnote Kant attaches to it we might be able to define and discuss what it is you are saying.

"There is therefor only a single categorical imperative and it is this: 'Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a univeral law'.

Now if all the imperatives of duty can be derived from this one imperative as their principle, then even although we leave it unsettled whether what we call duty may not be an empty concept, we shall still be able to show at least what we understand by it and what the concept means.

Since the universality of the law of the governing the producation of effects constitutes what is properly called nature in its most general sense, (nature as regards its form)—that is, the existence of thins so dar as determined by universal laws—the universal imperative of duty may also run as follows: 'Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a universal law of nature.' " (all Italics in original)

Here is Kant's footnote regarding the definition of the word "maxim"

"A maxim is a subjective principle of action which must be distinguished from an objective principle—namely, a practical law. The former contains a practical rule determined by reason in accordance with the conditions of the subject (often his ignorance or again his inclinations): it is thus a principle on which the subject acts. A law, on the other hand, is an objective principle valid for every rational being; and it is a principle on which he ought to act—that is, an imperative."

I will let others draw their own conclusions as to what Kant means here, and if the conversation is continued I will get back to you tomorrow. In the meantime I may just look up the Kant quotation to see what of Kant the Pope quotes.

Happy Reading.
 
Last edited:
Toby I said that because if you actually knew any Muslims personally you would discover they are pretty much like anyone else and wouldn't say such a hateful thing as there are no good Muslims. I know plenty and I know that barring knowing one muslim guy who is an asshole you wouldn't come to such a conclusion if you knew any.

I agree IH8.
 
toby said:
By your standards of proof, you haven't denied it so it must be true. LOL
Click to expand...


Toby, if you are making the assertion then the onus is on you to demonstrate the validity of the statement.

If you are claiming that IH8 is gay, you must demonstrate this.

If you are claiming that all Muslims are bad, you must demonstrate this.

You cannot simply make a statement and then say 'prove me wrong'.
 
I would submit there is nothing more "subjective" than objectivity.

I would agree.

If we ignore the obvious religious source for moral absolutism, we are essentially left with reason alone.

Rational self interest is the most realistic of all the sources of objective morality, it is exhibited in the ethology of most social animals and easily appears to explain apparent altruism. The problem with this is, much apparent altruism cannot be described as self interest, sacrifice for the group for example. This leads to utilitarianism...what is best for the social group. The problem with utilitarianism is found in the sources from which meaning is derived. There is no fixed meaning to existence, meaning is a human construct derived from the individual. We act according to the sources from which we derive meaning, making utilitarianism an artificial construct.

To determine whether morality is in reality objective or subjective you must look at what morality is and does. Morality is exhibited by most social animals, it is the mechanism by which society operates. Without morality, social existence would be impossible.

Morality is subjective and is derived from transference of perception, the capability of seeing actions through the eyes of others. As Jesus stated 'Do unto others....' Moral codes exist by mutual agreement.
 
Prakosh said:
Yes, I'm sure there was "more to the speech than quoting Kant," I even implied as much in my post on the speech. I heard the speech was over a half hour long, hard to believe that anyone could quote Kant for a half hour, but please show me where I said I didn't read the speech because the pontiff had quoted Kant. As far as I know I didn't say that I didn't read it because he quoted Kant. In fact, I said that he had quoted Kant in the speech only to say what I had heard about the speech. And I noted that I wasn't necessarily impressed by the fact that he had quoted Kant. Since I have read Kant, I am not averse to anyone quoting him, in fact if you read all of what I posted here, you saw that I too quoted Kant, so why would the quotation from Kant necessarily send me spinning on one direction or another? But if you can show where I said that I hadn't read the speech because he quoted Kant, please do. I haven't read the speech mostly out of lack of curiosity; I really don't care one way or the other what the pope has to say. I have heard plenty of learned men talk in my time on this planet, ceratin;y not all I would like to have heard, but I have heard some. But right now I'm not in the market for a treatise, no matter how learned, based on what one religious leader thinks about another religion or its leaders. As far as reading goes, right now I am trying to finish several different works and I would rather read the Introduction to the Authoritarian Personality by Theodor Adorno, and then finish a work on Adorno and his ideas. I am also trying to finish Les Miserables and Overthrow so yeah, just tell the pontiff to hold on to his scepter, sooner or later I may get around to him. Until then, I hope it isn't "unacceptable" to comment where I want, I so want to rid myself of my "Junior" status.

In the meantime, I wonder if I will I ever be read with any accuracy here???
Click to expand...
Right... "not necessarily impressed" because he quoted Kant. Nobody here had stated they were impressed because he quoted Kant. You were the one bringing that piece into the equation. Attempting to backpedal after stating, "I didn't read it, and I'm not impressed because he quotes Kant" to "I never said anything like that!" is backpedaling spin there, Prakosh.... (yes, I know they aren't direct quotes... they remain relatively accurate as to meaning though)

Not even one person here has said, "Wow that was impressive, he quoted Kant!" only you have said, "I didn't read it, but I heard he quoted Kant so I remain unimpressed..." (not a direct quote, I know, but an accurate depiction of meaning)...

In other words, only one person has actually attempted to give an actual opinion of the speech without actually reading it. I'll give you a hint... It was somebody unimpressed because he quoted Kant.

Read the speech then give an actually educated opinion, rather than just attempting to impress us all with your great knowledge by saying, "I'm unimpressed with that speech I didn't read!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top