Moral theory began with religion. In very simple terms, religion prescribed a list of dos and don'ts. The reason (why1?) was that God demanded it and God was the supreme moral authority — TheMadFool
He is using it in a general way, talking about something common to most/all religions, a moral framework...what? Whats the problem? — DingoJones
The reason (why1?) was that God demanded it and God was the supreme moral authority. However, it didn't stop there. Religion also answered or attempted to answer why2? and stated in clear terms that all evil was caused by Satan, the Devil. — TheMadFool
It is clear that these theories being birthed by professional philosophers trained in logic could answer why1? questions: they were all logical arguments and, if anything, were supposed to help people make moral decisions. The mantle of authority passed from God to Reason. — TheMadFool
Obedience to the moral law, of which Kant believes religion should be an example, appears to be an expectation that is neither universally nor willingly practiced. What is notable about the first two chapters of Religion is that he addresses this phenomenon in a manner that his Enlightenment predecessors had not: The failure of human moral agents to observe the moral law is symptomatic of a character or disposition (Gesinnung) that has been corrupted by an innate propensity to evil, which is to subordinate the moral law to self-conceit. Because this propensity corrupts an agent’s character as a whole, and is the innate “source” of every other evil deed, it may be considered “radical.” However, this propensity can be overcome through a single and unalterable “revolution” in the mode of thought (Revolution für die Denkungsart), which is simultaneously the basis for a gradual reform of character in the mode of sense (für die Sinnesart); for without the former, there is no basis for the latter. This reformation of character ultimately serves as the ground for moral agents within an ethical commonwealth, which, when understood eschatologically, is the Kingdom of God on Earth.
Christianity doesn't provide a logical argument for each of the ten commandments for example. — TheMadFool
Moral philosophy is different. It's an argument-based attempt to prove a system. It appeals to reason rather than authority. — TheMadFool
he failure of human moral agents to observe the moral law is symptomatic of a character or disposition (Gesinnung) that has been corrupted by an innate propensity to evil, which is to subordinate the moral law to self-conceit.
If moral philosophy made sense, it would name its basic assumptions. If it does not, then it is just an exercise in infinite regress. Naming basic assumptions is very much the same exercise as naming ten commandments. From there on, if you explain these ten commandments, then what do you explain them from? Another set of commandments?
Sorry, that approach is not rational. — alcontali
Perhaps anyway. I am not the least a Kant expert.Just so you know Coben posted this showing that Kant was indeed seeking a cause for morality. — TheMadFool
1. Finding the cause of good and evil was an impossible task since it is probably buried deep in the human psychology and psychology as a field was nonexistent then — TheMadFool
2. Finding the cause is redundant. KB moral theory is complete even without knowing the origin of morality — TheMadFool
Couldn't we say that they were realists (not saying they were right) who thought, this stuff makes people do things, so....
we'd better organize things like X, to make things as good as possible.
Don't we more or less get what they think the origins are? Or do you mean they lack an entity like lucifer?
Maybe if you could say an example of what they could have said that would have made it better. Doesn't have to be Kantian or Benthian, just an possible causal X. — Coben
The moral theory of Christianity is less, if rationality can come in degrees, rational. Reason/logic is utilized at a very basic level. The structure of Christian morals is by and large an appeal to authority - God. — TheMadFool
The ultimate premisses are not explained on grounds of other premisses. There is no other way to do it than to have ultimate premisses. As Aristotle wrote, if nothing is assumed then nothing can be concluded. So, in what way can any moral philosophy avoid reasoning from such ultimate premisses? — alcontali
Moral theory began with religion. — TheMadFool
If moral philosophy made sense, it would name its basic assumptions. — alcontali
We have finally reduced the definite conception of morality to the idea of freedom. — Mww
and so we find that on just the same grounds we must ascribe to every being endowed with reason and will this attribute of determining itself to action under the idea of its freedom....” — Mww
it is the law that makes you free. — alcontali
People can decide if they will keep religious law or not. If they do, it will set them free. — alcontali
You see, reason consists of arrows of the type p => q. — alcontali
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.