Ideals "not meant to be applied" meant not to be expected in the real world.A_Seagull wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 7:38 amSo why try to apply them to the real world then?
And if they are ideals...for whom or what are they 'ideal'?
If they merely demonstrate a certain degree of internal consistency but no connection to the real world, then they are indistinguishable from fantasy.
Ideals are impossible to exist as real in the real world.
Example a perfect circle has certain geometrical attributes but there is no way humans can produce a perfect circle in practice.
The concept of a perfect circle merely exists theoretically to be used as a standard guide for the practical to conform to as near as possible to that standard to qualify as a circle.
Just like perfect circles, CIs are ideals but we do not expect them to exist in the practical world.
The CIs are therefore theoretical ideals to be used a a guide for practical ethics.
I have demonstrated in the other thread, based on the principles of the CIs, how we can abstract an ought, i.e. "no human can kill another human' from the empirical "is".
This 'ought' is not meant to be enforceable as a law within jurisprudence and legislature.
This ought is merely to be used as a guide for humanity imputed into an effective Framework and System of Morality and Ethics to facilitate humanity to strive towards as close as possible to ZERO killing of human by another human.
Yes, the ideal sound like a fantasy but when justified theoretically [e.g. ZERO killing of another human] can be very useful to improve the moral quotient of the majority of humans.
Btw.. don't think the above in terms of the present and expect immediate results. The construction and implementation of the moral model will take time to produce results in 50, 100 or > years if we start now.