I need help :bigcry:

 

I have this huge essay tomorrow, it's my final exam in philosophy and we have to answer to a question with different ethics.

 

They give us 3 questions before the exam and on the day of the exam, they pick one. I have prepared the first two and I am pretty sure I am ready. However, the third one puzzles me. I know what my answer would be, but I don't know how to answer to it according to the kantian ethics or the utilitarianist ethics.

 

The question is:

 

Without the help of religions, could we always base ethic on solid values?

(sorry if this is badly translated, my first language is French)

Really? French :wink3:

 

Okay, not now :shame:

 

But, do we answer this as a survey?..

I'd say yes, because at some point we'll all realize where being dickheads, so we might as well lay some ground rules.

^You didn't know about my first language? :P

 

 

Yeah I know all that, but no, it's not a survey, I am not asking for people's opinions, but for how Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill (or even Jeremy Bentham) would answer to this question.

Oh.. can't help ya there.

 

I knew it was one of your languages, but not the first.

Sorry, I'm in the medicine field.

/show off.

 

I never really understood Kant and his stuff.

Ah, ok ok back to reading.

:rolleyes:

 

To narrow it down to the simplest explanation of their theories, utilitarianists say that the end justify the means, as long as the greatest number of people are happy. Kant, on the other hand, says that no matter if what you tried to do succeeded, it is the intention that counts. His categorical imperative can be explained as 'if it was a bad/useless thing that everyone do the same actions you make, it is not right'.

Oooh! I did my final philosophy essay about Kant too! and Utilitarianism! :D

It's a difficult subject

 

Without religion, we have to base our ethics on instinct. The problem there is that not everyone has the same instinct. So religion is important to make everyone's ethics the same.

 

If we base our ethics through Utilitarianism... everyone would have different ethical values!! :o

 

Utilitarianism = moral value of an action is based on the happiness the action gives.

 

Some people might get happy if they murder someone! :o :s So you can't base ethics on utilitarianism because each person's ethics will be different!

I don't understand :confused:

Sorry if I'm useless.

And doesn't religion act as a utilitarian way of ruling? When an entire population agrees with the same ethics, they'll be all happy :)

It's no problem, very neat monster which I don't know the name of :kiss:

 

Hmmm yeah I see what you mean there.. so according to the utilitarianist, we wouldn't be able to base ethics on solid values without religion, because a religion has an impact on many people. that's good, I can deal with that, thank you :nice:

 

But how about Kant?

:rolleyes4:

My understanding of the categorical imperative is a type of deontological ethics or a sense of duty. Both ethical philosophies you mentioned are based on a rational pursuit for the highest good. Kant invoked the phrase: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law". Basically Kant and Mill believe we should measure our decisions and actions on what ultimately produces the highest amount of good.

 

Interesting thing about contrasting this with religion is that although Kant insisted one cannot prove the existence of God...from a moral standpoint, believe in God is pragmatic and almost necessary.

I think you can base ethics on Kant's views... IF everyone's intentions were good :P

I think generally, people have good intentions so I think you can base your values on those intentions.

 

Of course... problems come up when people have bad intentions :disappointed: in that case, you can't base them on Kantian views.

How do you know the intentions of people anyways? Everyone has "intentions" but also secret intentions :P So I'm not sure you can base it on those

 

Have you heard of this idea: Everyone is always selfish.

 

So selfish intentions aren't always the best

I think you can base ethics on Kant's views... IF everyone's intentions were good :P

I think generally, people have good intentions so I think you can base your values on those intentions.

 

Of course... problems come up when people have bad intentions :disappointed: in that case, you can't base them on Kantian views.

How do you know the intentions of people anyways? Everyone has "intentions" but also secret intentions :P So I'm not sure you can base it on those

 

Have you heard of this idea: Everyone is always selfish.

 

So selfish intentions aren't always the best

we're not talking about communism here, I don't see how under kant's view, my actions are contingent on whether other people actually do likewise. My impression is that you should act 'as if' your actions were universal law.

My understanding of the categorical imperative is a type of deontological ethics or a sense of duty. Both ethical philosophies you mentioned are based on a rational pursuit for the highest good. Kant invoked the phrase: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law". Basically Kant and Mill believe we should measure our decisions and actions on what ultimately produces the highest amount of good.

 

Interesting thing about contrasting this with religion is that although Kant insisted one cannot prove the existence of God...from a moral standpoint, believe in God is pragmatic and almost necessary.

 

Yeah I kow of that maxim, we can interprete it in different ways, but the one we exploited in class was the universialisation of one's act.

Also, Mill and the utilitarists think that yes, the highest good is what we should try to reach for, but they first think that it has to be for the biggest amount of people possible. You kinda have to see it like maths. However, unlike Bentham, Mill did insist on the quality of the good, not just on the amount of it. But he still doesn't think like Kant.

 

Kant thinks that we can reach this highest good through our acts and the intention we put in them, not necessarly through the end we try to reach.

 

I think you can base ethics on Kant's views... IF everyone's intentions were good :P

I think generally, people have good intentions so I think you can base your values on those intentions.

 

Of course... problems come up when people have bad intentions :disappointed: in that case, you can't base them on Kantian views.

How do you know the intentions of people anyways? Everyone has "intentions" but also secret intentions :P So I'm not sure you can base it on those

 

Have you heard of this idea: Everyone is always selfish.

 

So selfish intentions aren't always the best

 

Yeah I understand you point there. However, would Kant agree with someone who would say that we cannot base ethics on solid values if we didn't have religions?

 

If we base our ethics through Utilitarianism... everyone would have different ethical values!! :o

 

Utilitarianism = moral value of an action is based on the happiness the action gives.

 

Some people might get happy if they murder someone! :o :s So you can't base ethics on utilitarianism because each person's ethics will be different!

1. people already have contrasting ethical values

2. your definition is imprecise, it's the greatest amount of happiness or good for the greatest amount of people. Thus it is far different from egoism or hedonism. A murder generally makes extremely few people happy, thus it wouldn't be a sound choice of action.

we're not talking about communism here, I don't see how under kant's view, my actions are contingent on whether other people actually do likewise. My impression is that you should act 'as if' your actions were universal law.

 

Good point! But I still don't think we can base our ethics on intentions. After all, intentions are merely intentions! Ethics should be based on pre-existing guidelines: i.e. religion.

 

Basing it on intentions would create many loop-holes and a generally misaligned system. At least, that's what I think :thinking:

would Kant agree with someone who would say that we cannot base ethics on solid values if we didn't have religions?

I'm shooting from the hip here since I haven't read kant in a while...but I don't believe Kant derived moral values directly from God or religion at all, as his approach is purely rational. I think it was more that, without a notion of God, afterlife or judgment, people would have a severely decreased incentive to adhere to strict moral principles.

Good point! But I still don't think we can base our ethics on intentions. After all, intentions are merely intentions! Ethics should be based on pre-existing guidelines: i.e. religion.

 

Basing it on intentions would create many loop-holes and a generally misaligned system. At least, that's what I think :thinking:

I don't follow you. Of course intentions are intentions, but the initial intentions are the result of deciding the most reasonable course of action.

 

In any case, expand on your pre-existing guidelines. What do you mean when you say religion? Are you advocating some kind of arbitrary theocratic law?

I'm shooting from the hip here since I haven't read kant in a while...but I don't believe Kant derived moral values directly from God or religion at all, as his approach is purely rational. I think it was more that, without a notion of God, afterlife or judgment, people would have a severely decreased incentive to adhere to strict moral principles.

 

No he didn't derive moral values from God, though his ethics have often been compared to a relgion without any law.

 

Well I have Kant's 'Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals' with me, and I don't see anything in there that would support what you just said, even though I think it makes a lot of sense.

An arbitrary theocratic law?! Hahaha Honestly, yes I do believe in that but I wouldn't dare say which one!

 

But I do believe that we should base our ethics ON religious guidelines because the religious guidelines act in the utilitarian way. They result in the greater good/happiness for the majority of the people.

 

As you said, intentions are the result of deciding the most reasonable course of action. But who's intentions should we base it on? The majority? The majority of US population in the 1920s believed in Eugenics and the "improvement of the human race". Their intentions were good! But they sterilized many people and rationalized the idea of inhibiting the disabled from leading normal lives.

 

Can we base ethics on Kantian views? that is... base it on "rationality"? I dont think so, rationality is too dynamic

An arbitrary theocratic law?! Hahaha Honestly, yes I do believe in that but I wouldn't dare say which one!

 

But I do believe that we should base our ethics ON religious guidelines because the religious guidelines act in the utilitarian way. They result in the greater good/happiness for the majority of the people.

 

As you said, intentions are the result of deciding the most reasonable course of action. But who's intentions should we base it on? The majority? The majority of US population in the 1920s believed in Eugenics and the "improvement of the human race". Their intentions were good! But they sterilized many people and rationalized the idea of inhibiting the disabled from leading normal lives.

 

Can we base ethics on Kantian views? that is... base it on "rationality"? I dont think so, rationality is too dynamic

well, let me quote you from before...

 

And doesn't religion act as a utilitarian way of ruling? When an entire population agrees with the same ethics, they'll be all happy :)

I guess this is what you were referring to. Your basic premise is that, everyone will be happy if we all adhere to the same ethical code. The same justification used by some terrible dictators throughout history who would kill those who disagree so that the rest of society would receive the utilitarian result of harmony and mutual agreement.

Yet you agree that the majority is never necessarily right. So its not a matter on the universality of the idea, but the rightness of the shared moral code. The question remains, how does one determine what is right if you dismiss all forms of human reason?

 

Or moreso...What makes a religion different from any other ideology when it comes to making sure we're all on the same page? It seems like the last line of yours I quoted is saying everyone will be happy if we all mindlessly submit to something. After all, if thought and reason engender disharmony we'd all be better off doped up on soma.

I don't follow you. Of course intentions are intentions, but the initial intentions are the result of deciding the most reasonable course of action.

 

In any case, expand on your pre-existing guidelines. What do you mean when you say religion? Are you advocating some kind of arbitrary theocratic law?

You know, your signature and the overall message of We Never Change is one of the most aspired dreams in my life. I am sure it is something that you also desire, seeing that you are one of the few people whom I can relate to in the entire forum.

 

Do you support nihilism as well?

Your basic premise is that, everyone will be happy if we all adhere to the same ethical code. The same justification used by some terrible dictators throughout history who would kill those who disagree so that the rest of society would receive the utilitarian result of harmony and mutual agreement.

 

First of all, I do not condone the killing done by the dictators you mention.

It is however true that a greater harmony and agreement is seen when everyone follows the same ethical code. Otherwise, conflict erupts!

 

Don't get me wrong, I do think rationality should be used to make decisions and guide us. And I think religious is the main source of rational thinking! I just think our ethical guidelines should be on religion (and the rationality that stems from religion).

 

Deriving rationality outside of religion... that's where I think things will go crazy. Rationality outside of religion is more a personal thing, don't you think? So it's difficult to base ethics on those... no? :thinking:

Since when is religion base on rationality? :thinking: