As I understand it, Kant himself knew the categorical imperative was circular, and himself did not believe it provided a way to define morality. What he said was that the existence of this imperative divided the motive for morality into perfect or imperfect duty to oneself or others. That is, from it he created a scheme of four motives for action, from which groundwork he could progress analytically.

But it is not up to me, I mean, I don't decide what is delicious, disgusting, joyful, wretched and so on. I may choose among things, but choices all presuppose an established value, which is there, in the ethical matter, and ethics and all of its complications turns on this. — Astrophel

Well its strange, there are people who find the phenomenological perspective intuitively appealing, and others just don't understand why. Perhaps there is a phenomenological explanation for that, but it's beyond me. lol.

But do we have any qualities that make us special? — TiredThinker

Well, hahaha, human beings seem to get upset at suggestions we might be robots, and without free will, and consider that a reason to say God can't exist. Personally if I am a robot and don't really have free will, I don't have any complaints about it, to divine beings or otherwise. Generally it's the fact we consider such issues that most differentiates us from animals, besides being more adept with tools than other species, but it is a bit arrogant to say that makes us 'special.' Diffferent, yes. Special, well that's a bit arrogant isn't it?

Science is important, yet all theories, like stories and metaphors are models. — Jack Cummins

Well this is my bone lol. What has happened is a split between the Academy of Science and the AAS, emobied by this definition split in the Wikipedia:

The United States National Academy of Sciences defines scientific theories as follows:

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the Sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics)...One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.[14]

From the American Association for the Advancement of Science:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory". It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

i really object to the statement in bold. It's quite clear you understand why, lol.

I’ve always understood that suicides make up a majority of firearm fatalities. — NOS4A2

Well that's true, and mostly overlooked, and this is why more gun control would be desirable, because it seems to me at least the Heller decision has ethical justification in enabling those incapable of nonlethal self defense to defend themselves, as I tried to state in my previous replay.

An Ethical view of 2nd amendment rights
— ernest

I think this title is misleading. Your post isn't really about gun rights or the Second Amendment, it's about killing for self-defense. Conflating those two issues increases the controversy unnecessarily. — T Clark

Well the problem as I see it, given the bipolar deadlock on the issue, is now down to public attitude. When I look at posts on Facebook from gun lovers, they put 'proud to be American' over the picture of an AR-15 or some such. Frankly it seems to me this pride is a complete fabrication by the gun manufacturing lobby for two treason.

First, the fact that individuals even need lethal self defense at all is really an appalling comment on the quality of our police. Other nations do perfectly well without it.

Second, it seems an enormously displacement of conventional ethics to be proud of the ability to kill. I can't really find any philosophical basis for it at all.

So it seems to me, if people instead thought it to be something that reflects their own inadequacy, to need lethal rather than nonlethal self defense, then it would be an enormous improvement. I don't mean any offense to elderly people or otherwise hancicapped adults, in fact I personally concur with the Supreme court's decision to uphold the right to lethal defense as the current interpretation of the 2nd Amencment, because exactly those people need it.

But it would be helpful if the general public regarded shooting other people more as a sad last resort, that we all would rather avoid, than to trumpet it in parades while shooting off rounds of bullets and waving the flag. Would that I could be more nuanced to say it, but frankly, it just looks completely insane to someone raised in Great Britain. I don't mean to offend anyone by saying it, but sorry, that's how it looks.

A few million dollars" would be a completely inadequate amount. — T Clark

Well thank you all for very cogent responses. I have to agree with Mr Clark that a few million dollars would be inadequate, on concurrent reflection. It's beyond my ability to make the resources necessary to convey a change of attitude, but it seems to me the frying pan and egg campaign 'this is your mind on drugs' is just about as much verbage as most people will listen to before falling back into preconceived notions that are almost invariably based on propaganda. From both sides. Sadly. Now that Nancy Pelosi wants to ban guns entirely, and the NRA has the GOP entirely in its pocket, no legislation can make any progress on this issue anymore. it just adds to the catfight.

This thread is not aimed to attack and criticize science, but just to look at its role and values from a critical point of view. Also, even though I use the words 'objective' and 'truth' in the title, I realise these words are open to question. My own meaning of objective is as something which lies beyond the individual and can be measured. I am not sure that there absolute 'truths', but that is not to say that everything is relative. The whole point in using such terms is that they are used by some writers and that even questioning such terms is important in critical examination of science. Any thoughts...? — Jack Cummins

Well hello, and to answer your question, it seems likely there are no absolute truths, only truths in context.

One of the biggest problems newer sciences have run into is that they don't meet the strict guidelines for defining 'scientific truth' as defined by Popper, that is, that hypotheses must be falsifiable. What I observed as the commencement of this in the USA was a particular effort by atheists to counter Creationist beliefs by extending the 'theory of evolution' so much it has in fact become unfalsifiable. With its most recent bells and whistles, such as 'soft selection,' there doesn't even need to be selection pressure to explain the evolution of characteristics with no competitive advantage. Thus it can explain everything, and nothing can refute the theory anymore. In prior generations that would have been regarded as transforming evolution itself into a religion.

However with the glut of people working in the sciences, there has also been a selection pressure on science to dissolve the necessities of corroboration of a hypothesis against results of a valid control group, because in 'soft sciences' such as psychology and sociology there exists no possibility of testing against a valid control. So now statistical variations are simply sought for their meaningfulness, and if a statistical result is shown not to be random, it is immediately touted as 'proof' for some new 'truth.'

Even so it's still regarded as the same 'scientific truth' as for Popperian hard sciences, which seems to me wrong. I was going to write a dissertation on that, but due to covid and declining health I had to abandon my hopes for returning to university. But I wish someone would pick up that cause, because 'truth' has become a real problem even in the scientific arena where it should have been the most secure.

Actually Aristotle explained the current scenario, and why the senate always seems to be close to 50:50.

To understand his explanation, imagine a government with five senators voting on a divisive issue, with a split 2:2:1. The single person has the most power by allying with one group or the other, but the lowest likelihood of winning another election after changing sides, because someone totally aligned with either one group or the other will get more popular votes. Hence it inevitably becomes a biparty system with a 3:2 split.

OIne would think increasing the senate size would stop this happening. But it doesn't. What happens is small groups accumulate and build up to the same result. For example, with 7 senators, one gets a split 2:2:3. the two groups of two can stop one person from the group of 3 controlling the swing vote by ganging together to make 4:3.

It transpires, emprically, Aristotle's observation holds true for at least a hundred. Somewhere between that and the size of the House in the USA it starts to break down, but I never saw a mathematical analysis of it. Chance for someone to make a fortune publishing it, as no one reads Aristotle any more. lol.