Kant's work, in my opinion, was very much deontological in nature. I, on the other hand, prefer a more utilitarian perspective in that I believe that the means never justify the end, but the end usually justifies the means. If something beneficial comes of an act that could, from a perspective, be considered negative then we must weigh the merits of what the beneficial thing was in the end. So long as negatives are outweighed by positives, then perhaps the actions leading up to the final result were not as bad as we previously hypothesized.

Kant believed that no action could be justified as moral unless duty was the motive behind it; any other motive would be considered impure in the long run. Duty, in that fashion, must be a very broad term then. After all, is it immoral for a man to participate in a gang in order to protect and provide for his family? Can you truly label that as an evil act?

Reality is perception and if something is perceived as evil, it becomes evil in the eyes of individuals or groups of individuals. There's no way to define actual truth either because, as I mentioned, the actual truth can be difficult to discern. Our minds play tricks on us. People swear up and down that the thief had a gun, but others say that he accosted the store-keeper with a knife. It's entirely possible that the stories change.

You can only trust what YOU can observe and what YOU can test in the end.

Man, I miss Tiny Terror...

Oh Wait! There he is!

I didn't say anything about the bulk of Kants work. Every Philosopher has good ideas and bad ideas. Kant is not a prophet to me. I don't subscribe to everything he said. I mentioned only the categorical imperative, which does not take motive into account. So if you are not familiar with the categorical imperative, then look it up. Its all I mentioned and all thats relevant to the topic of Why i believe moral truths are objective and can be generalized.

My problem with utilitarian ethics is that they do not take into account amoral actions. Theres positives and negatives, but no neutrals. The problem with that is that there is never a situation where you can morally condemn someone for putting on their left shoe in the morning before their right, or for eating frosted flakes instead of cheerios. There are some action that have no moral value, but utilitarianism does not take that into account.

Your example with the robber shows (though i hope Im wrong) that your not getting what I mean when I talk about the difference between what seems to be and what is. No matter how many witnesses say he had a gun, even if he gets sent to jail for it, it never change the fact that he only had a knife. The way we perceive reality, even by group consensus, does not change reality itself.

Did Galileo actually, physically change the way the heavens moved by altering our perspective away from a geocentric universe? No, The earth never was at the center, no matter how many spanish inquisitors tell you otherwise.

Even if reality was subjective, that would mean that eveyones perceptions are correct, and my perception is that it is objective, therefore reality is objective. So if you truly believe that reality is subjective, youll admit that its actually objective. Do you see how little sense that makes?

Or you can obstinately hold to your idea that reality is subjective, but then you must still admit that my perception is correct that it is objective, so reality is both subjective and objective.

Does that make any more sense?

To me, there is a absolute moral, and that is empathy.
Though I can't think of a way to apply it to RLSH at the moment...

I agree with both sides. I tried to word why, all I can say is that it's about how much you want to factor in. subjective individually, or as a species? objective locally? and does that make it right on a cosmic scale?

Okay, perhaps I should have been more obvious in my post. Of course I didn't mean that reality itself is subjective. Our perception of reality is subjective. Is there actually confusion over that?

Sheesh.

In beard we trust.

Thank you silver sentinel for injecting some sense into this thread.

without going over every concept talked about here. . .being a hero or vigilantee. . .well. . .standing by your actions. . .and accepting the consequences of those actions. . .might. . .and that could be a big might depending on the circumsatances you want to shoot at it. . .put you on the side of hero. . .most vigilantees. . .do not stand up to answer for their actions. . .or are willing to have the light of day shown on them. . .morality. . .right versus wrong. . .it's all subjective to the arm chair quarterback. . .or monday morning general. . .do you stand by your actions. . .or do you shrink away from them. . .a person may do something wrong. . .and may cross the line. . .for one reason or another. . .that could be human nature. . .but standing up to take responsibility. . .that could be classified as hero versus vigilantee. . .

dc

thats interesting. A big difference between a hero and a vigilante is accountability?

That's some strange food for thought...

And sorry for the philosophic tangent everyone. I wanted to keep it relevant and talk in PM, but i got excited and lost control. TT is a formidable opponent

DC, does William Shatner know you are stealing his shtick?

As far as Kant goes, I can use philosophy, but it's practical application only goes so far. I find Hebrew algebraic thinking MUCH more productive.

the categorical imperative is entirely applicable, as any good ethical system should be. But i agree, a lot of philosophy is malarkey.

Sorry, Mark. I meant to respond earlier, but I was waylaid by other matters of importance. I could debate ethical theories and their application until I'm blue in the face, but somehow life ends up getting in my way so that I avoid suffocating on my own arguments.

I had no intention of implying that you subscribed to the other works of Immanuel Kant; the Categorical Imperative, however, is not infallible. I'm wholly familiar with the formulations and whatnot. In order to better address this, I'd like to relate to you a question posed to Kant regarding the Imperative:

If a murderer asks you where his potential victim is and lying, per all 3 formulations of the Categorical Imperative, is immoral, do you tell him the truth knowing that you indirectly helped to kill another?

This is where the personal biases come into play. If lying is indeed immoral, which by the Categorical Imperative it is, then you would be just as guilty as if you had told the truth to begin with. The fact of the matter is that only the individual can decide between right and wrong and good and evil; your personal opinions help you to traverse the moralistic landscape. I'm sure you don't rigidly adhere to the Categorical Imperative, but that's the point I'm trying to make here.

There's personal truth and there's actual truth; as you said, the former does not supersede the latter. Oftentimes, actual truth is ignored on the basis of bias and opinion. This ties into a point I made earlier; the only facts are those that are testable. We can make guesses towards that point, but until we have the ability to test it, the actual truth eludes our grasp.

I'm not trying to state that reality is subjective, but perception is. If you weren't there and you can only go by eye-witness accounts, the actual truth is going to prove difficult to find as you have no way to actually test it. Is the actual truth of great importance? Absolutely. However, if all you have is perception, those are the rules you have to play by.

If you don't know the actual truth, then what's the truth anyways? If the actual truth is not known, then that leaves it up to opinions and guesswork...Which also doesn't make it true. Compare it to putting faith in a particular religion (A debate for a different day.); I don't recognize the God of the Christians...It doesn't make his existence any less true for a devout follower.

Good points, all. It sounds like we're actually on the same page regarding perception/ reality. I do have a response about your criticism of Kants idea, but Ill reply in PM, so we can stop cluttering up this thread .

not fair.... I want to know. you guys can't just let it get all interesting and go all PM.

I'll keep it going here as long as Mods promise not to yell at me for derailing a thread on (what i think is) a very important topic

or we can make a new thread in the lounge...