I wrote this elsewhere, but it still relates to this topic.......
Good ole Kant huh, LOL….I’ll tell you a true story,….when I was 17, I thought I’d give philosophy a red hot go, so I asked around, and the name Kant kept getting mentioned, so I whizzed down to the impressive new state library that had just been built, and I sought out some of his books…..however, upon reading that he felt “the moral imperative” meant/implied that you never lie, even in a bid to protect your loved one’s from intruders, I put the book down and gave philosophy the ass for a good 15yrs.
I returned to philosophy about 6-7 yrs ago, at which point I was quickly confused and always assumed that I hadn’t properly understood what I’d just read…I kept assuming it was a complicated subject{which it is}, and that if I just kept reading it, I’d eventually make heads or tails of it…..but I always had this feeling that certain obvious things we’re being relegated to being uncertain/unknowable.
Because I was an adult{33 at the time}, I was somewhat more persistent on this occasion, and with the aid of the net, I eventually stumbled across Objectivism, and it all started to make sense, especially the fact that Objectivism is very anti-Kant/mysticism…..so with some effort on my part, Objectivism began to alleviate most of my doubts, and actually teach me how to create the framework for a society operating with objectively formulated ethics.
Put simply, all we need as a starting point is the recognition that we need ethics to survive and prosper amongst others….so it’s actually the reality of the human condition that forces us to develop ethics, otherwise we place ourselves at the mercy of anyone who wants to harm or exploit us…..now if you say that’s just my opinion, what you’re really saying is that I’m free to do whatever I want to you or anyone you care about, and that you won’t stop me, or seek retribution.
Since reality forces us to create ethics, if we’re fair dinkum about creating a fair ethical system, then we have to ensure that our basic axiom/s don’t discriminate against anyone at ground level, ie, we want to be able to reduce all our ethical codes back to our base moral axiom/s….of course, this relationship is what gives any individual the moral high ground even if many others object…..ignorance, apathy and stupidity don’t have moral authority over properly developed objective ethical codes.
You mentioned the universal of “don’t kill”…..sounds good, and when we consider it’s value, we quickly realise that if we didn’t support this code, then whilst we’d have the freedom to kill whoever we wanted to, so would everyone else, and we’d be in jeopardy, subsequently making a mockery of the reality of our existence, which happens to be a life cycle.
Epistemology is really the science of knowledge, and because objectivism{and logic} reject the idea of God, supernatural, Kantian realms and so on, we have no choice but to create the ethics ourselves, and as long as we don’t discriminate against anyone, then our ethics are objective in that I’m not the only beneficiary, it’s not just my opinion, it’s also yours……only a fool would reject an axiom that protected and sought to advance their well being in favour of an alternative that threatened them and sought to destroy/exploit them…..but then again, some people appear to be rather comfortable with a master slave relationship.
As I mentioned, the integrity of our objective ethical codes rests on our ability to reduce them back to basics, signifying the codes are accurate in an objective sense….however, once we learn that God/Judaism/religion is flawed at a basic level, ie, that God doesn’t exist, then it should dawn on us that any ethical codes derived from this belief are most likely suspect….in fact, you’d have no choice but to logically analyse them, and determine their merit on their own 2 feet, which of course, is exactly what objective ethics propose.
So when we’re attempting to determine right from wrong, you better believe we need to rely on philosophy/epistemology/ethics for guidance, and being that most existing ethics are heavily related to religion/religious ideals, we’re in deep **** straight up….ie, God doesn’t exist, as such, the doctrines supposed moral authority disappears, and it’s left to logical analysis to determine any merit the doctrine might contain, knowing in advance, that it’s premise is flawed.
No one has the right to violate other people’s individual rights, specifically, you don’t have the right to distress, harm or kill an innocent person…..the penalty for this breach is relative to the crime, but moral authority always rests with the innocent law abiding individual.
As JJ frequently alludes to, you guys would do well to investigate some of the idea’s of America’s founding fathers, eg, the right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness….of course, all this goes out the window if someone rejects the very basic moral axiom/s, because unless we value the right to life{man’s life and his well being}, there’s no real compulsion to follow up with property rights and all the rest, cause we’ve entered into a master slave relationship.
