Tweet
Originally posted by zubin
View Post
thank you 
and perhaps it lasts a little longer?
This is partly a question of psychology that we have to settle before we can advance. I don't only believe, but believe it is already proven that, every person can take on the right principles of life. This is the virtue of Kant. He used a somewhat empirical religious framework to go against religious determinism, the notion that some are bad and nothing can be done about it. He didn't believe in hopelessness and said that a hopeless theory was of "no use" at all.
So he constructed the highest of all aspirations for humankind, the notion that there are principles out there which everyone can adopt. As a matter of psychology, because everyone has the ability to use logic despite disposition, I believe Kant has refuted determinism. He has refuted the need for anyone to rely on emotion alone in a given situation. So one's disposition is irrelevant. But yes, you're right. He has refuted disposition in the prescriptive sense, not the descriptive.
So in your example, the reality is that many people are selfish and this conflicts with others' rights, with morality itself. The point is that everyone person is capable of not being unduly selfish.
Now you might say "capability" is not enough, true. That's why I would expand on Kant and say it is not that people are capable, but that they are searching for the right answer. You might dispute this. In any case, it gives us a clear and promising role which will bring about a true morality. We have to find the universal principles every one's looking for, and simply bring them up. As people in my opinion are naturally searching for these universal principles, they will adopt them by us bringing them to their attention. The only difficulty is how, given human nature, to bring them up to their attention effectively, without it backfiring.
and perhaps it lasts a little longer?This is partly a question of psychology that we have to settle before we can advance. I don't only believe, but believe it is already proven that, every person can take on the right principles of life. This is the virtue of Kant. He used a somewhat empirical religious framework to go against religious determinism, the notion that some are bad and nothing can be done about it. He didn't believe in hopelessness and said that a hopeless theory was of "no use" at all.
So he constructed the highest of all aspirations for humankind, the notion that there are principles out there which everyone can adopt. As a matter of psychology, because everyone has the ability to use logic despite disposition, I believe Kant has refuted determinism. He has refuted the need for anyone to rely on emotion alone in a given situation. So one's disposition is irrelevant. But yes, you're right. He has refuted disposition in the prescriptive sense, not the descriptive.
So in your example, the reality is that many people are selfish and this conflicts with others' rights, with morality itself. The point is that everyone person is capable of not being unduly selfish.
Now you might say "capability" is not enough, true. That's why I would expand on Kant and say it is not that people are capable, but that they are searching for the right answer. You might dispute this. In any case, it gives us a clear and promising role which will bring about a true morality. We have to find the universal principles every one's looking for, and simply bring them up. As people in my opinion are naturally searching for these universal principles, they will adopt them by us bringing them to their attention. The only difficulty is how, given human nature, to bring them up to their attention effectively, without it backfiring.
Lets take a person who is starving to death, see it Africa all the time. An adult is starving to death, finds a slice of bread, before he starts chowing down on it, he looks over and sees a child, so fragile you can see his bones protruding and his blank stare is as deadly as his hunger, he looks at kid and knows that he could very well give that child a bite of his bread, but he won't, he moves over to a corner where he does not have to look at the child watching him eat the bread.
Now on a universal & instinctual level that person is compelled to share his food with the child...right???? wrong...why? because in his universe his standard of living precludes acts of mercy, its only survival, do or die. His level of acceptance has not reached a level where he can include another person in his meal.
Let me put it this way...lets say there are 3 levels of human..(there is more)
Level one...he know to eat, drink, piss, poop..none of which are his doing but his body is doing for as long as it can...he bound by the body, at this level his acceptance is probably about 0 that he can make a difference.
Level 2....he is bound by the body but he also know to go to work and pay for the food he eats, car he drives and pretty much on auto pilot in life..every once in a while he may pass a homeless person and put in a quarter...but he would never ever give him a mouth to mouth resuscitation...this guys level of acceptance is about 1. Because he can see the need to do good, but he is not sure if he is guy who should do good, let someone else do it.
Level 3...he is bound by the body but he knows there is more to life than just work, poop and sex (good or bad)...he sees others suffering but he does not know what to do about it...he tries, he reads about it, he makes donations, he talks about it...he know he wants to do somethings but he does not think he can, he needs guidance and advise as to what to do...this guy is level 3. Which is were majority of people fall into.
Now how can we expect that all these 3 level of beings share the same standard morality? Some might say raising the level of consciousness automatically raises the standard of Morality.
In my own case, Morality tells me killing is bad...I know it is...taking a life is against everything I believe in...but if I am with my kids, I am worse than a mother bear..I could easily kill...so where did that morality went? do I get to justify my action? What are the effects of going against something you believe in so empirically because your instinct told you otherwise?
, its better to participate and say something than just be a bystander.
Comment