S.A.TAN

perhaps one of the most unresolvable issues around in ethics is which ethical formulation to use. There are various-social contract, utilitarian and kantian. I am of the opinion that Kantian ethics is superior and that in fact, it should be the only ethical formulation used. Let me demonstrate this by juxtaposing social contractarian and utilitarian with Kantian

Agree or disagree?
1)If social contract is based on and only on mutual advantage and utilitarian is based on and only on social relations and kantian is based on and only on pure reason than Kantian is superior

2)pure reason according to Kant is also a priori knowledge ie: knowledge which is independent of and comes before sense perception and experience, knowledge which is inherent in the structure of the mind

3)In the 18th century, David Hume proposed to cast down all the principles of scientific knowledge by asserting that since principles are derived from external data and if external data itself is not garanteed to remain as it were in the past. Then the principles themselves which were inferred from these external data cannot be garanteed to hold for the future and if these principles can change with the passage of time, they cannot be inviolable principles.

4)This test of Hume knocks down any principle which depends on external data, including utilitarian and social contract.

5)However, this test of Hume cannot dispose of principles based on a priori knowledge which are independent of sense perception and experience

6)Since Kantian ethics is based on pure reason and pure reason is a prior knowledge then while other ethical formulations fall, Kantian continues to stand. Therefore Kantian and anything that derives principles from and only from priori knowledge is superior.

orac

You're planning to think rationally about your interaction with other people, without actually having any way to perceive the existance of other people?

This sounds like an unusual usage of the word "reason".

What a strange idea.

"It is impossible to think about things that exist because they might not exist in the future. How do I know this? Oh, I just made it up. I've never actually noticed, for example, gravity disappearing unexpectedly."

No it doesn't.

Well, unless you take "the universe may not exist, even though it certainly appears to exist, so why bother thinking about it?" as being a useful idea.

if you accept the test as valid and useful, it may remove the need to think about other people, but as the test is not particularly useful, why accept it?

Btw, if rational thought about external entities is impossible, how do you plan on being rational about external entities?


I feel a rendition of the philosophers song coming on - some of these ideas have to be the product of some serious drinking

Mr.Fantasy

what will you build your reason upon? you cant reason from nothing. First you must take an illogical step and accept something to then build your reason upon. Everybody does and there is no other way.
I feel like i missed something in your writing. I just dont see how you can build logical steps without experience or sense perception. Those seem to me to be primary factors in anything that makes sense. Im so confused...

Abel Stable

my car is well built too, but try driving it through a river.
I think its pretty important to pay attention to "external stimuli". You don't want to walk in front of a train. Hume seems to suggest that one can live in a vacuum. I think that might be attainable, but it would require stepping infront of a train.
right, no apparent conflict - unless...wait a second...what if your wiring changes over time? Or what if mine is different from yours? Better figure those suckers in.
I still don't see how they're superior to anything- but they're in tight competition with Spock and the Vulcans. Pure reason is fun, I know- and it can be helpful at times. But if you are proposing that all external stimuli should be distrusted and denied in one way or another -- I can't see how that would be a wise choice.

In fact, I don't even think that it's possible.
I never could understand these philosophies.
yep, thats probably why

S.A.TAN

Orac
Perhaps one of the biggest problems that people have is make wild extrapolations.

Which part of my post indicates this? While the existence of a priori knowledge is independent of experience, the operation of a priori knowledge works in tandem with experience.

I need to program a software first before actually using it right? Of course it needs to interact with the operating system and other programs but not before I do all the necessary programming.

Once again putting words into my mouth....try this experiment: u believe in the existence of gravity? - what is the basis of your belief?

Mr Fantasy
Mr Fantasy, it didn't make sense to me at first too. But imagine this, categorize something...an apple for example....what do you categorize that thing on? its attributes correct? where did you learn all these attributes from? through experience...correct? Are the attributes themselves categorizable?......

This list will go on and on and at each point you will find that your ability to identify and categorize something is based on your experiences....until at the end of this thought chain, you will face the final question....what was your very first attempt to identify and categorize something based on? your very first experience? And where did you obtain that very ability to identify and categorize your very first experience from?

This leads us to infer a priori knowledge

Abel
That is not what I am proposing

Misso

That's only when pure reason is superior to mutual advantage and social relations though.
You are assuming two things: that pure reason is indeed superior, and that David Hume was correct.

How you know what an apple is, and how can you ask yourself a question, with just a priori knowledge?

S.A.TAN

I didn't assume those two things, i demonstrated it, read my post

as for how I would know an apple is an apple without experiencing and being taught what is an apple....that is not possible.

However, to be exposed to experience and teachings without a priori knowledge will be like trying open an excel file in a computer when microsoft office has not hbeen installed

kctan

How do babies learn ? They've no prior experiences nor teachings. They learn first thru micmicking then later when they can hold an idea, they learn thru conceptualisation. Humans are vastly different from a computer.

My daughter is going to be 3 years old soon & you can take my words for it.

We don't have to install programs to run applications, we write our own. Meaning I will open your excel file using a program I write myself. Might-go-soft office not needed.

Eric H

Hello S.A.TAN


Ethics are to do with moral beliefs and actions so surely the whole point about ethics is how our actions affect other people.

If you set your ethics based on pure reason who is going to be this body who sets our moral laws?

Will it be philosophers and academics who might have their own interests to consider based on pure reason?

Would it be politicians and lawyers who may have a different set of ethics built on pure reason from their own perspective.

Would it be the billionaires in industry who can set their ethics based on their industry of banking, the arms trade, oil etc?

Or by some strange interpretation of pure reason, could the billion people on this Earth who live close to starvation on a dollar a day set the ethics based on pure reason?

It is this last group who should be able to set the ethics for our world, but from our own perception of pure logic they haven’t got a hope.

Would morals set on pure reason be correct first time around, or would they have to be reviewed and modified from time to time?

My thoughts about ethics are not so much about what your ethics are set on, but about the people on the receiving end of any ethical laws.

Peace

Eric

Misso

No you didn't. You said "If (...) then (...)", providing no arguementation for why this should be true.
You also just assumed, again without any arguementation, that Hume was right, and that extrenal data isn't guaranteed to hold true for the future. Some philisophers, however, believe that everything is eternal and nothing ever changes, which would mean that external data is guaranteed to hold true in the future. Why would they be wrong and Hume be right?