Is God necessary for morality?

[Ginkgo]

Double post, sorry.

[Ginkgo]

Is God necessary for morality? Wrong question!

Is morality necessary? For what?

We all need moral code to live by, unless of course you are an amoralist.

You answer is circular given the question I asked you.

To say that you need morality, is to say that morality is necessary. What is it necessary for?

The label I attach to myself is immaterial.

Why is my answer circular? You asked a question and I provided an answer.

[Ginkgo]

What that means is that Kant is not providing us with the requisite moral information. Other systems, some of which flatly contradict his conclusions, are being treated as equal and alternative.

So take, for example, Kant's claim that you should turn your friend over to soldiers if hiding him implicates you in a lie. Many people would instinctively find that difficult to accept, and a Utilitarian would flatly reject that sort of slavish commitment to an abstract idea which results in harm to your friend. If you say both systems are equal, then that means neither tells us anything about what is right or wrong to do in the situation. Neither gives us "morality."

What I am saying is that teleological theorists reject Kant on the basis that he doesn't take into account the consequences of an action. Your example of lie telling highlights the problem for many deontologists.

You forgot Virtue Ethics, and also Pragmatism, Nihilism, Islamism, Judeo-Christian morality, Emotivism, Feminist Ethics, the End of Ethics school....and so on. The Deontological-Consequentialist distinction has only been drawn by some, and only since Kant and Mill/Bentham. And even then, a strong current of Aristotelian Ethics was still being used in various places. So that's just not the case.

Yes, I would agree with this.

Actually, they have MANY reasons for rejecting Kant, but the claim "he's not teleological" is not one I've ever heard.

Kant is rejected by teleological theorists because he doesn't take into account the consequences of an action.

But even you just admitted Kant's theory is not objectively right, because you countenance rival theories and accord them equal standing. That's a confession that Kant is not obligatory, not universally right, and certainly not the high road to moral truth. Anybody else's ethical theory is just as good as his, you're saying.

I have not admitted Kant's theory is not objective. I am saying that it has problems, I didn't say his theory is objectively wrong. Despite the problems it is still an objective theory. Most moral theorists claim that Kant's ethics is objective, not the other way round as you claim.

Let me try and summarize the state of play so far. You argue every moral philosopher is saying that Kantian ethics is not objective, whereas, I am saying that the majority of philosophers argue that Kantian ethics is objective. The sticking point is what most moral philosophers say about Kant. Would this be a fair summary of our positions?

[Skepdick]

Why is my answer circular? You asked a question and I provided an answer.

Because your answer was implicit in the question.

I asked you "What do you need X for?" and you answered "Because I need X".

You failed to state the purpose/telos of morality.

[uwot]

Who now needs God are Islamist autocrats and such ill- educated / indoctrinated subjects they rule over.

I really hope you don't mean that.

have you perhaps misapprehended something?

Quite possibly, my apologies if so. Religious autocrats and ill-educated/indoctrinated subjects are not exclusive to Islam, it seemed unfair to me that you should single them out.

[Belinda]

Who now needs God are Islamist autocrats and such ill- educated / indoctrinated subjects they rule over.

have you perhaps misapprehended something?

Quite possibly, my apologies if so. Religious autocrats and ill-educated/indoctrinated subjects are not exclusive to Islam, it seemed unfair to me that you should single them out.

Is that what it was! I understand. I should have included 'communist' autocrats such as Putin considering his treatment of the Uighurs.Others too no doubt.

[Sculptor]

have you perhaps misapprehended something?

Quite possibly, my apologies if so. Religious autocrats and ill-educated/indoctrinated subjects are not exclusive to Islam, it seemed unfair to me that you should single them out.

Is that what it was! I understand. I should have included 'communist' autocrats such as Putin considering his treatment of the Uighurs.Others too no doubt.

I thought the Uighurs lived in China?

[Immanuel Can]

Let me try and summarize the state of play so far. You argue every moral philosopher is saying that Kantian ethics is not objective, whereas, I am saying that the majority of philosophers argue that Kantian ethics is objective. The sticking point is what most moral philosophers say about Kant. Would this be a fair summary of our positions?

No, that's not right.

That's a bandwagon fallacy. To say that Kantian ethics are not objective is not a subject settled merely by opinion, even the "expert" opinion of his peers in moral philosophy, or by subsequent critics. They may make it more plausible that his ethics are not objective, but they cannot settle the question absolutely. Whether or not they are right that Kantian ethics are not objective is settled only the the question of whether or not Kantian ethics ARE objective.

But we can pursue the question better this way: one quality of things that are objectively true is that their opposite is objectively false. But your claim, up to this point, has been that Kantian ethics are objective AND all the alternate view of ethics are equally valid. Now, that's logically impossible. Those two things simply cannot be, at the same time, since they contradict. It cannot be true that handing your friend over to the soldiers, as Kant endorsed, and maximizing happiness by telling a lie, as Mill might have endorsed, or doing something else, as critics of Kant have so frequently advised, are all simultaneously the objectively moral thing to do in a situation like that.

So either Kantian ethics are objectively right, and all rival systems such as I have listed are objectively wrong, or Kantian ethics are not objective at all.

Which is it?

[Belinda]

Quite possibly, my apologies if so. Religious autocrats and ill-educated/indoctrinated subjects are not exclusive to Islam, it seemed unfair to me that you should single them out.

Is that what it was! I understand. I should have included 'communist' autocrats such as Putin considering his treatment of the Uighurs.Others too no doubt.

I thought the Uighurs lived in China?

So they do. Xi Jinping is the demagogue in question. What is it Putin has done? Let me count the ways. Litvinenko, and the Salisbury poisonings for a start. Mohamed Bin Salman isnother religious autocrat.

[Ginkgo]

Let me try and summarize the state of play so far. You argue every moral philosopher is saying that Kantian ethics is not objective, whereas, I am saying that the majority of philosophers argue that Kantian ethics is objective. The sticking point is what most moral philosophers say about Kant. Would this be a fair summary of our positions?

No, that's not right.

That's a bandwagon fallacy. To say that Kantian ethics are not objective is not a subject settled merely by opinion, even the "expert" opinion of his peers in moral philosophy, or by subsequent critics. They may make it more plausible that his ethics are not objective, but they cannot settle the question absolutely. Whether or not they are right that Kantian ethics are not objective is settled only the the question of whether or not Kantian ethics ARE objective.

But we can pursue the question better this way: one quality of things that are objectively true is that their opposite is objectively false. But your claim, up to this point, has been that Kantian ethics are objective AND all the alternate view of ethics are equally valid. Now, that's logically impossible. Those two things simply cannot be, at the same time, since they contradict. It cannot be true that handing your friend over to the soldiers, as Kant endorsed, and maximizing happiness by telling a lie, as Mill might have endorsed, or doing something else, as critics of Kant have so frequently advised, are all simultaneously the objectively moral thing to do in a situation like that.

So either Kantian ethics are objectively right, and all rival systems such as I have listed are objectively wrong, or Kantian ethics are not objective at all.

Which is it?

My statement is not a bandwagon fallacy because these opinions are the opinions of experts, not popular opinion.

It is not only my opinion that Kant's ethics are objective it is the opinion of most moral philosophers. As I pointed out in a previous post your claim that every moral philosopher since Kant are saying that Kant's ethics are not objective is obvious false.

You keep on saying that it's my opinion that Kantian ethics is objective, it is other expert opinions as well. When I say alternative ethics are equally valid I do so on the basis that they are valid within their own framework. This has nothing to do Kant's objectivity, you are trying to compare apples with oranges.

You claim that either Kantian ethics are objective right or all other systems are objectively wrong is a false dichotomy.

[Immanuel Can]

My statement is not a bandwagon fallacy because these opinions are the opinions of experts, not popular opinion.

Still bandwagon fallacy. The experts have been wrong before. But if you want to say they're right in this case, okay...because I was pointing out that the experts say Kant is not objective...so if you want to go with that, okay.

You keep on saying that it's my opinion that Kantian ethics is objective, it is other expert opinions as well.

Great. Name one.

But either way, if you allow that other ethicists are equally right to Kant, then Kant cannot possibly be the objective truth about ethics. And the laws of logic, not me or you, say that's so.

[Ginkgo]

Still bandwagon fallacy. The experts have been wrong before. But if you want to say they're right in this case, okay...because I was pointing out that the experts say Kant is not objective...so if you want to go with that, okay.

The experts don't say that Kant is not objective, they say just the opposite. Besides you have committed the same fallacy with your claim that, "Not only am I saying it, so is every moral philosopher since Kant." You are on a hiding to nothing with this quote. In the end I agree with you that it is probably OK to go along with the experts. After all if we can't rely on them then there is nothing much left to say.

Great. Name one.

Ok, I will:

"Kant argued that the supreme principle of moral is a standard of rationality the he dubbed the 'Categorical Imperative' (CI). Kant characterized the CI as an OBJECTIVE, rationality and unconditional principle that we must always follow..." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. R. Johnson, 2004.
Johnson goes on to say, "The CI is indeed a fundamental principle of morality."

But either way, if you allow that other ethicists are equally right to Kant, then Kant cannot possibly be the objective truth about ethics. And the laws of logic, not me or you, say that's so.

This is nothing more than a misrepresentation of what I have been saying. I'm not saying Kant is the objective truth about ethics, I am saying his ethics are objective- big difference. As I said in a previous post his ethics are objective within the frame work of his theory, just like other ethical theories are contained within a framework.
I'll say it again,I am not saying Kant is the objective truth about ethics.

[Sculptor]

Is that what it was! I understand. I should have included 'communist' autocrats such as Putin considering his treatment of the Uighurs.Others too no doubt.

I thought the Uighurs lived in China?

So they do. Xi Jinping is the demagogue in question. What is it Putin has done? Let me count the ways. Litvinenko, and the Salisbury poisonings for a start. Mohamed Bin Salman isnother religious autocrat.

What has he done to the Uygurs?
As for Putin - this sort of stuff has been happening between the western powers and russia for over 100 years. The west is no better. I don't see how we get the moral high ground.

[Immanuel Can]

The experts don't say that Kant is not objective, they say just the opposite.

Name somebody who does.

Besides you have committed the same fallacy with your claim that, "Not only am I saying it, so is every moral philosopher since Kant."

No, I did not. I merely pointed out that your say-so was nowhere near of the expert quality or volume of those who say Kant's morality is not the objective truth. I did not say that that made it impossible you were right...just that it was highly improbable.

Great. Name one.

Ok, I will:

"Kant argued that the supreme principle of moral is a standard of rationality the he dubbed the 'Categorical Imperative' (CI). Kant characterized the CI as an OBJECTIVE, rationality and unconditional principle that we must always follow..." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. R. Johnson, 2004.
Johnson goes on to say, "The CI is indeed a fundamental principle of morality."

Your quotation only says, "Kant argued that..." And we all know he "argued" it was so. But he was wrong about that, as you say below. And the second quotation doesn't actually appear in the entry you quote at all. So I wonder why you felt compelled to throw it in.

I'm not saying Kant is the objective truth about ethics, I am saying his ethics are objective- big difference.

Then all you're saying is Kant pretended or wrongly thought his ethics were objective, but they were not...which is exactly right. But now you've got no candidate system for an objectively correct theory of ethics, since you're admitting Kant was wrong about that, and the OP is unanswered again.

I am not saying Kant is the objective truth about ethics.

Okay. That's what you were (read literally) saying earlier. But if you misspoke, I won't hold you to it.

[Belinda]

I thought the Uighurs lived in China?

So they do. Xi Jinping is the demagogue in question. What is it Putin has done? Let me count the ways. Litvinenko, and the Salisbury poisonings for a start. Mohamed Bin Salman isnother religious autocrat.

What has he done to the Uygurs?
As for Putin - this sort of stuff has been happening between the western powers and russia for over 100 years. The west is no better. I don't see how we get the moral high ground.

Sculptor, my list of who needs God was never supposed to be complete. I only gave a few examples.