View source for 17.06.2009 – Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals: Second Section III

<poem>
Gaya Ethaniel: Hello everyone :)
Gaya Ethaniel: Hello Winston :)
Winston Haystack: HI
Gaya Ethaniel: Hello Dali :)
Gilles Kuhn: hello everybody
Dali Waverider: Hi folks.
Gaya Ethaniel: Gilles looks like being sucked into the chair.
Dali Waverider: Maybe we could get Storm to install a stone in here for Birric.
Gaya Ethaniel guffaws.
Gaya Ethaniel: You look nice and comfy on the sofa Birric :)
Birric Forcella: Hmmmm
Gilles Kuhn: ok so we will start
[Birric Forcella: My computer is acting up
Gilles Kuhn: all will be logged and send to the cia fsb mossadh and worst kira so beware
Dali Waverider: Philosophy is a low bandwitdh activity.
Birric Forcella: I hope you appreciate my leaving my rock . . .
Birric Forcella: I don't do it for everybody
Dali Waverider: understood.
Gilles Kuhn: lol Birric yes we do
Gilles Kuhn: well so Kant anyone question as it is the last time we will adress only the first and second part next week we attack the third and last
Gilles Kuhn: so if there is something unclear about the fact that moral must be a priori but synthetic it is the time...
Winston Haystack: Do you have transcripts?
Gilles Kuhn: yes Winston in the Google group see our group charter
Dali Waverider: last 3 seminars: [[http://groups.google.com/group/philosophical-seminar/browse_thread/thread/12795cbf1f79e9a6#|http://groups.google.com/group/philosophical-seminar/browse_thread/thread/12795cbf1f79e9a6# http://groups.google.com/group/philosophical-seminar/browse_thread/thread/12795cbf1f79e9a6#]]
Gilles Kuhn: and too as you know we refer to the text freely available at gutenberg.org
Winston Haystack: TY
Gilles Kuhn: [[http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext04/ikfpm10.txt|http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext04/ikfpm10.txt http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext04/ikfpm10.txt]]
Gilles Kuhn: so it is clear that for Kant we cannot use any empirical experience to construct morality nor any kind of external and imposed at us set of predefined laws?
Gilles Kuhn: are the difference between autonomy of the will and heteronomy (that is the base for all forms of failed morality) clear?
Birric Forcella: I had an endless discussion at PH with someone who tried to tell me that morality depends upon the law. There is a line to that effect in there - and I raised that question before. What does "law" mean in this context?
Gilles Kuhn: well for Kant there is to kind of laws heteronymous one like mosaic stone table and autonomic one (we speak only of morals )
Birric Forcella: Let me try to find the quote
Gilles Kuhn: the autonomic law is the law of your reason that impose her own coherence to your will
Gaya Ethaniel: It's something one feels compelled to follow. Someone suggested principle as an alternative in this context a few weeks ago that I agree.
Birric Forcella: Oh dang, it's on the other computer
Birric Forcella: Well, it sounds like some outside law - like some natural law
Gilles Kuhn: and well we don’t speak here of juridical law that are heteronomic by definition even if democratic or anarchist system can make them approach more autonomy remember it’s all about the individual in Kant moral
Gaya Ethaniel: What part of that sounds like external to you Birric? My sentences don't indicate any origins, internal or external ...?
Gilles Kuhn: and Kant distinguish very acutely law of nature to which non reasonable entity are subject and laws of autonomy that are about the freedom of rational autonomous agent like us the later are not subjected to the law of nature by the postulate of freedom and of free will
Birric Forcella: That's just the problem
Birric Forcella: Never mind
Gilles Kuhn: agreed that is a big problem
Gilles Kuhn: as we will see in the third section if there is no free will and freedom all morals are about nothing they have no more object
Gilles Kuhn: so if we agree to speak of morals we need to postulate free will if not there is no morals at all as choice are inexistent and we can reduce happily all anthropology ethics morality and politics to neurobiology which can then be reduced ultimately to particle physics
Dali Waverider: molecular biology probably far enough.
Gilles Kuhn: but as in the reverse dualism in mind/body problem is saying well we cannot know, in morals absolute reductive physicalism say there is no object to your talks you are speaking of unicorns.....
Gilles Kuhn: yes Dali but molecular biology depend on chemistry which depend on quantum chemistry which depend on particle physics....
Birric Forcella: This is a hopeless cul de sac
Birric Forcella: But let's do it
Gilles Kuhn: But notice that even if we accept absolute reductionism and we say there is no free will as individuals we feel even if it is an illusion that we need to make choice some of them moral choice
Gilles Kuhn: so it seems to me we need to accept the postulate as we are compel in our subjectivity to choose
Gilles Kuhn: (btw just atm I think that kill bill gate and smash Microsoft is a valid universal law....)
Gaya Ethaniel: Well one could always leave it to impulses rather than choices in theory?
Dali Waverider: aw, Bill Gates is doing wonderful things with his (our) money.
Gaya Ethaniel: [I disagree about Gates and Microsoft btw]
Gilles Kuhn: yes then he negate his rationality and submit himself to natural law (impulse) and then he is surrendering is freedom
Gaya Ethaniel: Or ... that itself is also a choice in a way.
Gilles Kuhn: Gaya now we know you use linux :-)
Gilles Kuhn: indeed Gaya
Birric Forcella: Don't kill him, just put him in a cubicle with Vista for the rest of his life
Gaya Ethaniel: &gt;.&lt; gave up on Linux back in 2000 maybe I should try again.
Gilles Kuhn: argh that’s really horrible Birric !
Gaya Ethaniel: :)
Gilles Kuhn: would add and take out the alt ctrl del keys...
Gaya Ethaniel: Birric has a wonderful sense of antagonism.
Gilles Kuhn: indeed ! that permit nice dialectic !
Gilles Kuhn: but Gaya to come back to what you say I think that renouncing his rationality and reflexion to follow impulse is the characteristic of amorality of the negation of ethics
Gilles Kuhn: and I am sure Birric will strongly disagree
Gaya Ethaniel nods.
Gaya Ethaniel: Not always but a lot of times when it comes to moral choices that is true.
Gilles Kuhn: well Gaya when it come to feed yourself in non critical situation i think anyone follow impulse
Gilles Kuhn: but that not about morality as there is no dilemma
Gaya Ethaniel: Well I was thinking more about pursuing one's happiness. Kant didn't think all such cases are exclusive of morality.
Gilles Kuhn: even Kant said that only a saint will follow his reason and impose it systematically to his will and that only god if the late exist has no difference between his will and reason at all
Gaya Ethaniel: He thought it a positive as long as it lies within moral boundaries.
Gilles Kuhn: yes he qualify the pursuit of happiness as "prudence " sorry remember my French translation
Gilles Kuhn: exactly Gaya
Birric Forcella: Well, that's even worse, because he sets up an ideal that is impossible to achieve and so makes everybody feel guilty and in need of redemption - now, where have I heard that before?
Gilles Kuhn: I don’t agree Birric no guilt or redemption are part of Kant reasoning
Gilles Kuhn: redemption is irrelevant to moral actual choice
Birric Forcella: What happens to the ill-chooser?
Birric Forcella: Karma?
Gilles Kuhn: an d guilt is like impulse nothing to do with reason he say explicitly both are heteronomical and thus not ground to moral action
Birric Forcella: So we feel guilt for pleasure?
Birric Forcella: I mean, feeling guilty is a pleasure?
Gilles Kuhn: Kant speak of moral not of religion nor metaphysics these question for him are simply irrelevant because forever out of our knowledge capacity
Gilles Kuhn: pleasure and guilt are irrelevant for moral choice: they are external to the pure reason they are empirical object and so are relative and so as they are relative they cannot ground an apodictic absolute moral law
Gaya Ethaniel: I don't think guilt arises from aspiring to a standard but from having a false sense of ego/self-image.
Gilles Kuhn: well guilt is a product of conscience and a posteriori (in the common sense) reflexion about one deeds
Gilles Kuhn: and yes I agree guilt was abused by a lot of religions most of all the catholic one
Gilles Kuhn: btw is anyone here familiar with the work of John Rawls?
Gaya Ethaniel: Nope
Yakuzza Lethecus: yeah
Yakuzza Lethecus: at theast his theories of justice on the surface :P
Gilles Kuhn: well yakuzza
Winston Haystack: Yes
Birric Forcella: yes, somewhat
Birric Forcella: of course I disagree
Gilles Kuhn: do you see that Rawls is a neo Kantian big time?
Gilles Kuhn: (it would be amusing Birric to have an author apart of Raynd which you agree even a bit with :-) )
Birric Forcella: Freud . . . Wilhelm Reich . . . Hegel . . .
Gilles Kuhn: Hegel ! gosh !
Gilles Kuhn: (sorry out of subject but I surely would like to hear you about Hegel Birric)
Birric Forcella: Actually, I sharply disagree with all the authors that are important to me - You should hear my criticism of Ayn Rand.
Winston Haystack: How was justice as fairness in Rawls the same as Kantianism?
Gilles Kuhn: I would love to hear that indeed
Gilles Kuhn: well in the manner of the choice in Rawls
Winston Haystack: Lag, nvm
Gilles Kuhn: the idea of veil of ignorance when you choose the rules in Rawls is only a practical manner of developing a categorical imperative as Kant
Gilles Kuhn: the cat imp. of Kant repose only to universalisable maxim that are only grounded in a reason that is transcendent : same for Rawls apart he use a trick to make the process less abstract
Birric Forcella: Well, for one I sharply disagree that egoism is a MORAL imperative - that makes me disagree with most of what Rand writes prescriptively - I really only mostly agree with here analyses - For instance, I also sharply disagree that people are responsible for what they do - You should see that Birric on Ethics really is incompatible with most of Rand
Gilles Kuhn: btw Birric please post your text on ethic in the Google group
Birric Forcella: I thought you would do that. You said you would review and then decide on that
Gilles Kuhn: and if you want when we finish the Kant round you can take the chair for some session about your text could be interesting
Gaya Ethaniel: Shall I setup a wiki?
Gilles Kuhn: yes I have done Birric I mostly agree on nothing but please upload it it is a good debate matter and I am big advocate of absolute freedom of expression
Gilles Kuhn: would be great Gaya !
Birric Forcella: Basically, I don't think you can have a well-ordered society based on justice or - to put it more in general Kantian terms - based on the idea that people would be doing the right thing. Societies in which people are expected "to do the right thing" are instable, lead to totalitarianism and suffering, and will eventually crash
Gaya Ethaniel: ok I will let you know when it's done. Birric and anyone else can contribute/write freely then.
Winston Haystack: The original position in Rawls is based on emotion IMO, and that determines the choice.
Birric Forcella: k
Gilles Kuhn: well Birric if I DO love Kant is because politically speaking I am an anarchist which entail that I need a moral based on individual freedom without external laws
Gilles Kuhn: yes but the choice is in a position where you have no idea what your position in society or in the world would be where you don’t even know what your personal capacity will be
Gilles Kuhn: (in Rawls)
Birric Forcella: Well, I am also an anarchist at heart - at least in the sense that I want minimum government - but I don't think you can base it on morals.
Gilles Kuhn: and the Google group can do the same trick Birric you can upload file if not send me a mail
Gaya Ethaniel: That makes sense. A lot of people don't understand themselves enough to make right choices for themselves.
Winston Haystack: It's still emotional because the choice assume a cultural bias called risk aversivenesss, leaving out many others who are risk takers.
Gaya Ethaniel: I have the Birric's text. I will just upload onto wiki, no worries.
Gilles Kuhn: the bet of anarchist is to educate people sufficiently in order to achieve that and yes its idealism (common sense meaning) big time
Winston Haystack: The original position is biased in other words, HAHA
Gilles Kuhn: I totally agree with you Winston
Birric Forcella: I am really sorry that I am reacting to violently to Kant. I did not expect that, but I guess my position has developed a lot since I read him last. I am reminded of when I watched Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth" - up to that I was all for global warming policies.
Gilles Kuhn: well I was thinking only French speaking Belgian were in favour of global warming but that’s another story :-)
Gaya Ethaniel: Don't feel sorry Birric. You have right to react to ideas :)
Gilles Kuhn: I would say you have even the moral obligation to do so ! :-)
Gaya Ethaniel: :)
Gaya Ethaniel: Like I said last week, I have found Kant's ideas on moral ideal, something I can aspire to yet not able to reach.
Gilles Kuhn: next week we will address last section but it could be interesting to try to find a way where the cat imp arrive to an undecidable a serious one
Winston Haystack: What are you reading?
Winston Haystack: What sections?
Gilles Kuhn: may I propose all of us try to find a maxim or moral choice situation where the cat imp would contradict itself or lead to an undecidability ?
Gilles Kuhn: http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext04/ikfpm10.txt winston
Winston Haystack: TY
Gilles Kuhn: we have read preface and the two first section next week we attack last
Winston Haystack: YIPPEEEE!!
Sunfire Langer: hello, guys
Gaya Ethaniel: :)
Gaya Ethaniel: What's the plan for after Kant btw?
Dali Waverider: Winston is your glum appearance a result of the recent disappearance of analog signal?
Winston Haystack: Ayn Rand, HAHA J/K
Gaya Ethaniel: I like Winston's AV, it's cute :)
Winston Haystack: Yes Dali
Gilles Kuhn: is there any philo after Kant? :-))) well we can if Birric wish to do so let him expose his text on ethic and discuss it , if not I am open to suggestion but I would have propose the introduction to the critic of pure reason or a more modern article of philo of science
Yakuzza Lethecus likes to hear about philo of science
Yakuzza Lethecus: but sure i don´t have a problem hearing about Birrics ethics first too
Winston Haystack: I vote for Critique of Pure Reason
Gilles Kuhn: intro to it winston if not we will have for two years....;-)
Winston Haystack: What is Birric's ethics?
Birric Forcella: I'm open to anything
Gilles Kuhn: a text on ethic of Birric
Birric Forcella: Fine. I'm happy to explain it
Gilles Kuhn: well then you take the con when we finish Kant moral for let say two or three seminars ?
Dali Waverider: It will be pleasurable.
Birric Forcella: Sure
Gilles Kuhn: good
Gaya Ethaniel: Great let's hear Birric.
Birric Forcella: Well, you can post my text
Gaya Ethaniel: I will this week and let you all know by email when wiki is up.
Birric Forcella: Anybody who wants it, I also have it as a notecard
Gilles Kuhn: btw time out for the official part I therefore expulse all Russian cultural atttache present :-))))
Gaya Ethaniel: [assuming you signed up for the Google group]
Gilles Kuhn: btw I assume all member of the google grou p can upload files?
Gaya Ethaniel: mhm
Gilles Kuhn: will check that anyway
Dali Waverider: The Russians are our friends.
Gilles Kuhn: was referring to the log Dali :-)
Birric Forcella: Leave me an IM or note if you want to the notecard
Dali Waverider: right
Gaya Ethaniel: Need to get dinner. Thanks everyone :)
Winston Haystack: I want a notecard
Dali Waverider: bye Gaya

</poem>
[[Category:Session transcripts]]