What could make morality objective?

[Skip]

No, I didn't invent or create any of those things, but every one of them was produced, created, or discovered by individuals--not groups, collectives, or societies. And I am the first to credit those individuals.

Another factual error. You are not the first to do anything - you're only the last in a long and samish procession.

Please see my article, ""Only Individuals," to know why only individuals really matter.

Pass. Actually, I passed that intellectual milestone in 1969.

[Dalek Prime]

Randy. Skip. I think you two are arguing different things, from what I can see. I do understand what you are saying Skip, that no man is an island, and of course you are right in saying individuals develop through their relationships with others. I think though, and correct me if I'm wrong, Randy, that you find the individual to be of greatest import in your philososophical outlook, much as I do, myself being an antifrustrationist, antinatalist, and a negative preference utilitarian. Does that sound similar to your views, Randy?

[Skip]

I do understand what you are saying Skip, that no man is an island, and of course you are right in saying individuals develop through their relationships with others.

Much more than that. All life is a continuous network. We are all direct descendants of the very first clump of sticky RNA.
No biological entity is a discreet, finite, independent individual: no biological entity can survive alone. None have infinite opportunity or the capacity for uninfluenced action. Very few are lucky enough to have any choices at all.

This is not a comment on their value or importance, meaning, purpose or whether they matter - of course they don't. Not one of them - us, you - has any unique significance in the universe. The universe doesn't know we're here; nature produces trillions of life-forms and cares about none. The universe and nature are not interested in our up-living, our potential or our happiness; these things have no more objective value than those of a snail or rhinoceros.

It's not just that individuals develop thought their relationships with others: it's that they exist only through the interaction of two previous others, who exist through the interaction of four others, etc. We exist through all the interactions of all the life that went before; our physical self, as well as our senses, instincts, emotions and cognitive processes are the product of all previous evolution. All that we know and have are the products of entities - their lives, thoughts and actions - that went before: all the individual contributions we know about, and the vastly more contributions of which we are ignorant.
That's no impediment to one's self-worth, self-determination or self-aggrandizement, but denying the plain biological facts is wilful ignorance; whether it's done in religious faith or 'objectivist' hubris, it's dogmatic nonsense.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QereR0CViMY

ETA, eg - consider:
You and Randy are self-motivated, self-determined individuals. You want to be on the other side of the road, so you say, "Screw the conventions, I'm crossing right now." Randy in his SUV, sees you step off the curb, says, "I don't owe anybody anything; it's my right of way." steps on the gas.
Next morning, neither of you is an individual: you're the occupant of morgue drawer #6 and he's inmate #2249.

Our minute-by-minute survival takes place in and depends on an ecosystem. And that's what forms and informs our morality.
Every living thing is the center of its own tiny universe and considers itself the most important thing that ever was or will be. Yet none can quit the ecosystem that sustains it. That's the origin of our codes of behaviour - from a field-mouse to Marilyn Vos Savant, every creature must constantly negotiate a truce with its surroundings. As brains grow heavier and more convoluted, so does their moral code. There is nothing mystical about it - but nothing final or absolute, either.

PS - Of course individuals matter. They matter to themselves, and they matter to me. It's just that I consider the possum raiding the catfood on my back porch just as much of an individual as - well, actually, more than I consider you, because I've met the possum and know he's real.

[dorothea]

Just joined so missed the foregoing discussion. But. What could make morality objective? How can it be objective if individual choice is essential to a moral act. A computer algorithm couldn't be moral, though it might be objective. Isn't that one of the problems with utilitarianism - that it tries to be objective about situations and people that are not, as Bentham posited, all equal?

[Peter Holmes]

Hi, dorothea.

Just joined so missed the foregoing discussion. But. What could make morality objective? How can it be objective if individual choice is essential to a moral act. A computer algorithm couldn't be moral, though it might be objective. Isn't that one of the problems with utilitarianism - that it tries to be objective about situations and people that are not, as Bentham posited, all equal?

There seem to be two main arguments for objective morality: the niche and self-defeating argument that morality somehow derives from a god; and the secular argument that morality somehow derives from facts about human nature and our environment - the 'what's really good for us' argument.

The problem of mistaking moral judgements for facts (as in Aristotle and Kant) remains the defeater for moral objectivism.

[Walker]

Seems like …

Morality is a principle, therefore it’s incorrect to seek a particular action that is objectively moral in all situations. The principle of morality is objective, however particular actions are subjective, that is, subject to conditions.

Morality the principle is objective because whatever the value system may be, in terms of morality the worth of a specific action is determined by comparison to an absolute, which is life.

For instance, an aboriginal head-hunter may view his actions as moral, and these same actions will be viewed as immoral from another cultural viewpoint, however both the morality and the immorality are determined to be so, in relation to life.

Because morality of an action or ideology is determined in actual (not wished-upon-a-star) relationship to the absolute of life, morality as a principle is objective.

Life is the absolute because life is all that one can experience, and the value of that experience in terms of morality is determined by how a society views the effect of the action upon life. The views of these effects may vary between societies, but all the views are based on life.

[Peter Holmes]

Walker wrote:

Morality the principle is objective because whatever the value system may be, in terms of morality the worth of a specific action is determined by comparison to an absolute, which is life.

I don't think the assertion 'life is an absolute' has a clear meaning. And any moral assertion you derive from it won't express a falsifiable factual claim, but rather a value judgement, such as 'life is good, therefore we should promote it'. Neither of these claims is a fact.

[Immanuel Can]

Hello, Dorothea. Perhaps I can offer something.

Just joined so missed the foregoing discussion. But. What could make morality objective?

An objective basis, index or authority behind morality would be sufficient to make morality objective, of course. At present in the discussion, the vexed question is whether such a basis exists or not.

How can it be objective if individual choice is essential to a moral act.

Because while "individual choice" is involved in morality, it is not all that is involved; nor is it a sufficient definer of what is moral.

In other words, "a moral act" is a phrase referring to something somewhat different from "objectively-existing morality"; and both are distinct from "moral choice-making."

This will be clearer if we take an example. It could be true to say, for example, that it could be objectively wrong to rape. The moral act, therefore, is not to rape. But it would be a different question as to whether or not people choose to rape. Some will, and some won't. So the moral precept ("Thou shalt not rape," say), the moral act (say, "not-raping") are different from the matter of "individual choice" (some will, some won't obey the precept or commit the act).

[Veritas Aequitas]

Hello, Dorothea. Perhaps I can offer something.

Just joined so missed the foregoing discussion. But. What could make morality objective?

An objective basis, index or authority behind morality would be sufficient to make morality objective, of course. At present in the discussion, the vexed question is whether such a basis exists or not.

How can it be objective if individual choice is essential to a moral act.

Because while "individual choice" is involved in morality, it is not all that is involved; nor is it a sufficient definer of what is moral.

In other words, "a moral act" is a phrase referring to something somewhat different from "objectively-existing morality"; and both are distinct from "moral choice-making."

This will be clearer if we take an example. It could be true to say, for example, that it could be objectively wrong to rape. The moral act, therefore, is not to rape. But it would be a different question as to whether or not people choose to rape. Some will, and some won't. So the moral precept ("Thou shalt not rape," say), the moral act (say, "not-raping") are different from the matter of "individual choice" (some will, some won't obey the precept or commit the act).

Agree with your views.
Not sure about your [since you X his image], I am great fan of Kant and his Framework and System of Morality and Ethics [which is not deontological as most claim it to be].

Kant agreed with Hume we cannot get an "ought" from "is" but we can interact both in complementarity, like in Yin-Yang or Bohr complementarity in Quantum Physics.

Within Kant's Framework and System of Morality and Ethics the model is like the Science Model with its dual Pure [Moral] and Applied [Ethics] aspects.
In Science and Mathematics, the Pure aspects are the impossible ideals which only guide [not enforcing] the Applied aspect of actual practices.
There is no real perfect triangle in existence but its principles are used to guide the use of triangles in the practical domain of the real world.

Similarly in the Kant's Framework and System of Morality and Ethics, the moral aspect of the system generate the Pure Principles of Laws of Morality to guide [not enforceable] its practices within Applied ethics.

Thus within the Kantian System one must establish Absolute Moral Laws/Precepts like
1. "Thou Shall Not Rape" no ifs nor buts.
But such a Pure Law is merely a guide only.
To apply the above Pure Law to its Applied sphere that Law will be adopted as an Ethical Maxim, i.e.
2. "Thou Shall Not Rape" but if a rape is committed, one must self correct to achieve 1 above via guilt and conscience within the individual circumstances.

One point is the Kantian Morality and Ethics is specific to the individual and collective minds only and independent of the legislative, judiciary and politics.
In this case the critical factor here is a self-development and a self-regulating system of one own Moral and Ethical compass.

Being humans, there will a certain percentage of people who will lack moral & ethical values and competency in practice.
On this perspective, politics will install a legislature, judiciary and policing by borrowing and adapting moral laws and ethical maxims to regulate and enforce the behavior of society to prevent anarchy.

As such philosophical morality & ethics which is independent will work parallel with the political/legal system.

The critical question here is how do we ground and justify what should be the Pure Absolute Moral Laws [non-theistic] that is to be applied within a personal self-regulated system. Kant provided the solutions but it is a complex subject to discuss.

[Peter Holmes]

Veritas Aequitas

Since we can't derive an ought from an is, any supposed moral law or precept must be based on a value-judgement.

I think Kant's confusion came from his residual Christian theism.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Veritas Aequitas

Since we can't derive an ought from an is, any supposed moral law or precept must be based on a value-judgement.

I think Kant's confusion came from his residual Christian theism.

First there are no ontological absolute laws, i.e. the ones commanded by a God.
Kant actually condemned Christian theism very strongly as a bane to the progress of humanity, albeit has some transitional use at the present but not for the future of humanity.

The point is if we want to follow the Scientific model of Pure and Applied we have to establish Pure Absolute Moral Laws so that we can apply it like the scientific model.
It is not based on value-judgment [not personal ones], it cannot be.
Whilst we cannot derive an 'ought' from "is" [empirically] re Hume, we can derive ought from the highest reason possible as abstracted from the empirical and work them on a complementarity basis.

The challenge [tough but possible] is how to derive [or abstract] the 'ought' to be used as a guide in the "is", note 'guide' only and not as a law that is enforceable.

[Peter Holmes]

Veritas Aequitas

Since we can't derive an ought from an is, any supposed moral law or precept must be based on a value-judgement.

I think Kant's confusion came from his residual Christian theism.

First there is no ontological absolute law, i.e. the ones commanded by a God.
Kant actually condemned Christian theism very strongly as a bane to the progress of humanity, albeit has some transitional use at the present but not for the future of humanity.

The point is if we want to follow the Scientific model of Pure and Applied we have to establish Pure Absolute Moral Laws so that we can apply it like the scientific model.
It is not based on value-judgment, it cannot be.
Whilst we cannot derive an 'ought' from "is" [empirically] we can derive ought from the highest reason possible and abstracted from the empirical.

The challenge [tough but possible] is how to derive the 'ought' to be used as a guide in the "is", note 'guide' only and not as a law that is enforceable.

Dress it up as we may (and Kant did) with talk of Pure Absolute Moral Law, an ought can never be more than a value-judgement. There is no deductive (logical) path from a fact to a moral judgement. The two kinds of assertion have completely different functions. Kant made the same mistake as Aristotle.

[Immanuel Can]

Not sure about your [since you X his image], I am great fan of Kant and his Framework and System of Morality and Ethics [which is not deontological as most claim it to be].

Hi, Veritas:

Don't be too concerned about my apparent slight on Kant. I'm not actually at pains to criticize him. The name is actually a pun, but also a bit of an inside joke. "Immanuel" referred to Someone long before Kant.

That being said, I think you're right about Kant. Alan Wood (Stanford) has a very compelling argument that says Kant took a particular teleology (an "end" or "outcome-in-view") for granted in all he argued. He never thought that something like a purely formal structure like the categorical imperative was, by itself, all you needed; and he wasn't a pure rationalist. But, of course, that's not how the Neo-Kantians who have followed Kant have tended to see his work. They still pursue a project of pure formalism, hoping to succeed in finding an argument for morality with no reference to teleology, because they think Kant was trying to do just that.

Kant agreed with Hume we cannot get an "ought" from "is" but we can interact both in complementarity, like in Yin-Yang or Bohr complementarity in Quantum Physics.

Like Peter, I find that a bit of a perplexing idea. I don't think "ought" and "is" are opposites or complementaries in the way Yin-Yang is supposed to be. Rather, one is a type of fact-judgment, and the other is a type of value-judgment. That puts them in totally different categories, not as opposites within a single category, if you see what I mean.

There is no real perfect triangle in existence but its principles are used to guide the use of triangles in the practical domain of the real world.

But that seems to me more a a Platonic argument than a Kantian one. After all, to say that morals have some role in "guiding" our personal and social interactions is obviously true as a sociological fact; but WHY they OUGHT to guide our actions is the real problem. And that's quite a different issue, I would say.

Think of it this way: the medical profession used to speak fairly broadly of "vestigial organs." This was a belief that things like the appendix or the human tail bone were essentially useless anatomical features, left-overs from the days when human beings (it was thought) had other kinds of diet or had primate tails.

By analogy, then, what makes us confident that morality is not similarly a "vestigial" phenomenon, a "left-over" from older days, when our sociological and religious needs were different than they are today? And if they were that, would we not be more "progressive" to realize that and reject all our "vestigial" morality? How do we know, then, that any of our morals are actually "good"? Maybe they're just old, and now out-of-date. Maybe they're just holding us back, and we should get, as Nietzsche said, "beyond good and evil." How would we know?

Similarly in the Kant's Framework and System of Morality and Ethics, the moral aspect of the system generate the Pure Principles of Laws of Morality to guide [not enforceable] its practices within Applied ethics.

This sounds a bit more like traditional Neo-Kantianism: but I would agree with what you said earlier, and with Alan Wood, that it's not reflective of an accurate reading of Kant to say he aimed at pure formalism.

Thus within the Kantian System one must establish Absolute Moral Laws/Precepts like
1. "Thou Shall Not Rape" no ifs nor buts.
But such a Pure Law is merely a guide only.
To apply the above Pure Law to its Applied sphere that Law will be adopted as an Ethical Maxim, i.e.
2. "Thou Shall Not Rape" but if a rape is committed, one must self correct to achieve 1 above via guilt and conscience within the individual circumstances.

Well, though, how "absolute" is a law that "is merely a guide only"? How "absolute" is a law that can be altered by "conscience" and "individual circumstance"? How "absolute" is a law that is "not enforceable" at all? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the point here, but it seems to me that the CI means "an imperative that must be categorically obeyed (in order to remain rational/moral), or at least, "an imperative that must be obeyed in all categories of human experience," as illustrated in application by Kant's famous "soldier" analogy.

One point is the Kantian Morality and Ethics is specific to the individual and collective minds only and independent of the legislative, judiciary and politics.

But they are dependent on it, surely. Assuming Kantianism were correct, we would not want "legislative, judiciary and political" decision that were not moral, would we?

In this case the critical factor here is a self-development and a self-regulating system of one own Moral and Ethical compass.

But in Kantianism, that "compass" is not a possession of the individual only. It "points," so to speak, only ever true north, to the right or the good that is universal, categorical and imperative for all persons in all situations and at all times -- at least, that's the Kantian idea. So morality, in Kantianism, is not relativistic, and is not personal in the sense that everybody can have his or her own opinion about it and cannot be criticized by other rational people after the fact for having made a wrong decision, or praised after the fact for having made a right one. Rather, it's only personal in the sense that every person needs the compass -- but the compass always points the same way.

Being humans, there will a certain percentage of people who will lack moral & ethical values and competency in practice.

Kant didn't worry much about this. He knew it would be true, obviously. But he was interested more in the idea of the "perfect triangle," to use your analogy. He was working on the heuristic method for locating morality, not on the sociological question of whether or not people would obey such a thing once it was found to exist.

On this perspective, politics will install a legislature, judiciary and policing by borrowing and adapting moral laws and ethical maxims to regulate and enforce the behavior of society to prevent anarchy.

They will, of course. But again, why would we want "legislative, judicial and policing" laws that are contrary to morality? And by what legitimacy are these groups allowed to "enforce behaviour"? That sounds awfully Fascist, if they enforce without legitimate authority, does it not? That sounds more like rule by raw power, if it's not rule by moral rightness. And I think we hope for more of the latter than the former from our laws, do we not?

Indeed, why should "anarchy" be prevented, in a world which contains no certain axiom, "Anarchy is evil"? Maybe anarchy is freedom, as extreme Libertarians and Anarchists would argue; or maybe anarchy is just "the state of nature," to which we all ought to revert, in which "survival of the fittest" can function maximally? Who is to know, then?

The critical question here is how do we ground and justify what should be the Pure Absolute Moral Laws [non-theistic] that is to be applied within a personal self-regulated system. Kant provided the solutions but it is a complex subject to discuss.

But why should we think they must be "non-Theistic"? Kant didn't: according to most biographers, he was a pietistic Protestant (as Peter has already correctly pointed out). Besides, have we somehow already conclusively proved that God does not exist, so that Theism can be rationally eliminated at the start? (That's a proof I'd be keen to see.)

Or are we merely concerned that not everybody believes in Theism?

But isn't that just the point? If Theism is factually true, then it would not make any difference to Theism's accuracy as a heuristic for finding true morality; it would simply mean that when we found what true morality was, not everybody would automatically be inclined to believe in it. If I'm right, what would happen is that their ontology, (which always precedes their ethics) would mislead them, such that they would (wrongly) suppose that good things were not good, and that bad things were good. In short, they wouldn't be morally right: they would simply be morally confused.

And if there's one thing one can safely say about the field of secular ethics today, it's that it very evidently IS morally confused.

[bahman]

The reality is that we are minds, similar, covered by skin of body, different. That is objective truth. The rest is subjective depends on situation.

[Veritas Aequitas]

That being said, I think you're right about Kant. Alan Wood (Stanford) has a very compelling argument that says Kant took a particular teleology (an "end" or "outcome-in-view") for granted in all he argued. He never thought that something like a purely formal structure like the categorical imperative was, by itself, all you needed; and he wasn't a pure rationalist. But, of course, that's not how the Neo-Kantians who have followed Kant have tended to see his work. They still pursue a project of pure formalism, hoping to succeed in finding an argument for morality with no reference to teleology, because they think Kant was trying to do just that.

I am also a great fan of Alan Wood. Not sure of your Alan Wood's teleological view.
I am a bit hesitant in using the term 'teleological.'
Kant's proposed Framework and System of Morality and Ethics is towards eventual Perpetual Peace which is not possible under the current circumstances but such has possibilities in the future when the conditions are established.

Why I am optimistic is this;

Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It is something we are all born with. At birth, babies are endowed with compassion, with empathy, with the beginnings of a sense of fairness.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... of-babies/

The above is merely a seedling and evolving very slowly. What is needed is to expedite the process [how? to be discussed] and accelerate the average moral quotient of humanity based on the Kantian guidelines. Say, if the current average moral quotient [MQ] is 100 and we can increase it to 300 for the average person, then the moral & ethics status will be drastically different.

There are already signs the inherent moral drive is evolving within humanity. Note humanity has already banned 'Chattel Slavery' in ALL recognized Nations. This is the legal step but actually driven by that inherent moral drive within humanity and if the MQ is expeditious increased to 300 [within 75 years?] then the average person will spontaneously self-regulate and modulate rather than being forced by legislative laws. Laws are still necessary in the background to deal with the very percentile [0.01%] of perverts.

Kant agreed with Hume we cannot get an "ought" from "is" but we can interact both in complementarity, like in Yin-Yang or Bohr complementarity in Quantum Physics.

Like Peter, I find that a bit of a perplexing idea. I don't think "ought" and "is" are opposites or complementaries in the way Yin-Yang is supposed to be. Rather, one is a type of fact-judgment, and the other is a type of value-judgment. That puts them in totally different categories, not as opposites within a single category, if you see what I mean.

The argument of 'ought' and "is' arise from the dichotomy of pure rationalism versus pure empiricism.
Kant was woken from his dogmatic-rationalist slumber and went on to reconcile both extremes, i.e. interacting pure rationalism versus pure empiricism in complementarity. It is basically the dualist issue which is the same with Yin-Yang and other dualist dichotomies.

There is no real perfect triangle in existence but its principles are used to guide the use of triangles in the practical domain of the real world.

But that seems to me more a a Platonic argument than a Kantian one. After all, to say that morals have some role in "guiding" our personal and social interactions is obviously true as a sociological fact; but WHY they OUGHT to guide our actions is the real problem. And that's quite a different issue, I would say.

Think of it this way: the medical profession used to speak fairly broadly of "vestigial organs." This was a belief that things like the appendix or the human tail bone were essentially useless anatomical features, left-overs from the days when human beings (it was thought) had other kinds of diet or had primate tails.

By analogy, then, what makes us confident that morality is not similarly a "vestigial" phenomenon, a "left-over" from older days, when our sociological and religious needs were different than they are today? And if they were that, would we not be more "progressive" to realize that and reject all our "vestigial" morality? How do we know, then, that any of our morals are actually "good"? Maybe they're just old, and now out-of-date. Maybe they're just holding us back, and we should get, as Nietzsche said, "beyond good and evil." How would we know?

Point is the moral drive is a seedling that has sprouted with evolution and will continue to grow, albeit at the present at a too slow rate.
[note the link on Moral Babies above]. Also note the evolution of mirror neurons which exist is confined evidently in the primates only. [maybe in elephants but there are no research on this?]
"Vestigial" phenomenon work in the opposite direction, i.e. devolving into useless parts of the body.

Similarly in the Kant's Framework and System of Morality and Ethics, the moral aspect of the system generate the Pure Principles of Laws of Morality to guide [not enforceable] its practices within Applied ethics.

This sounds a bit more like traditional Neo-Kantianism: but I would agree with what you said earlier, and with Alan Wood, that it's not reflective of an accurate reading of Kant to say he aimed at pure formalism.

Yes, not pure formalism.
Actually Kant's use the System Approach, i.e. input, output, and control feedback.
Within a system approach, we need something fixed [like setting a fixed point for a thermostat] as a guide and system to operate based on the feedback.
With a themostat or other robots we can set fixed perimeters.
However within a Moral and Ethical System we cannot have goal posts that will move anytime.
So for a Moral and Ethical Systems to work we need absolute Moral Laws for the system to work effective. Why? - that need to be discussed.
Re absolute Moral Laws, surely not Hitler's nor God's, so how can we arrive at acceptable absolute Moral Laws as fixed inputs to act a guide [only] within the Moral system. [need to be discussed]

Thus within the Kantian System one must establish Absolute Moral Laws/Precepts like
1. "Thou Shall Not Rape" no ifs nor buts.
But such a Pure Law is merely a guide only.
To apply the above Pure Law to its Applied sphere that Law will be adopted as an Ethical Maxim, i.e.
2. "Thou Shall Not Rape" but if a rape is committed, one must self correct to achieve 1 above via guilt and conscience within the individual circumstances.

Well, though, how "absolute" is a law that "is merely a guide only"? How "absolute" is a law that can be altered by "conscience" and "individual circumstance"? How "absolute" is a law that is "not enforceable" at all? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the point here, but it seems to me that the CI means "an imperative that must be categorically obeyed (in order to remain rational/moral), or at least, "an imperative that must be obeyed in all categories of human experience," as illustrated in application by Kant's famous "soldier" analogy.

The CI is never meant to be enforced and obeyed.
Kantian Morality and Ethics is not politics, legislatures and the judiciary.
Kantian Morality and Ethics is philosophy and practical wisdom that must be spontaneous from a self-regulating person.

Kant approach is never the casuistry approach, e.g. trolley dilemmas etc.
Kant used the 'soldier-lie' as one of the very few examples [in his moral theory] to demonstrate certain specific point within his whole framework and system of morality and ethics. So one need to interpret that soldier-lie point within the specific context not the whole context of his theory.

Note Kant complained of readers who cherry picked and missed the whole context [actually this is very natural because it is SO difficult to understand [not necessary agree] Kant whole theory.

A philosophical work cannot be armed at all points, like a Mathematical treatise, and may therefore be open to objection in this or that respect, while yet the Structure of the System, taken in its Unity, is not in the least endangered.
Few have the versatility of mind to familiarise themselves with a new System; and owing to the general distaste for all innovation, still fewer have the inclination to do so.

If we take single passages, torn from their contexts, and compare them with one another, apparent contradictions are not likely to be lacking, especially in a work that is written with any freedom of expression.

In the eyes of those who rely on the judgment of others, such contradictions have the effect of placing the work in an unfavourable light; but they are easily resolved by those who have mastered the idea of the Whole.
-Critique of Pure Reason -Bxliv

Note Kant emphasize 'System' above and it is all over his Critique and elsewhere.

One point is the Kantian Morality and Ethics is specific to the individual and collective minds only and independent of the legislative, judiciary and politics.

But they are dependent on it, surely. Assuming Kantianism were correct, we would not want "legislative, judiciary and political" decision that were not moral, would we?

The Kantian System and its Absolute Moral Rules are established and implanted in the mind of the individual[s] not based on the legislative.
As I had stated if the average moral quotient [MQ more fluid than IQ] is 100 at present then we need to increase it expeditiously to 150, 200, 250, 300, 350 and higher is as short time as possible,
then the reliance on legislative, judiciary and political elements for peace will be like 1% while it will be 99% of spontaneous naturally driven morality.
It is just like IQ which is established, implanted and improve [albeit very gradually] within the mind of the individuals.

In this case the critical factor here is a self-development and a self-regulating system of one own Moral and Ethical compass.

But in Kantianism, that "compass" is not a possession of the individual only. It "points," so to speak, only ever true north, to the right or the good that is universal, categorical and imperative for all persons in all situations and at all times -- at least, that's the Kantian idea. So morality, in Kantianism, is not relativistic, and is not personal in the sense that everybody can have his or her own opinion about it and cannot be criticized by other rational people after the fact for having made a wrong decision, or praised after the fact for having made a right one. Rather, it's only personal in the sense that every person needs the compass -- but the compass always points the same way.

In Kantian Morality, theoretically all humans will be in one team, i.e. team human, and has the same moral qualities directed towards the ideal absolute moral precepts [yes, the compass point the same way].
Note as I had mentioned the challenge is how to know the absolute moral precepts [the compass points] are the absolutely right way and fool proof. [it is possible but this need to be discussed].

Being humans, there will a certain percentage of people who will lack moral & ethical values and competency in practice.

Kant didn't worry much about this. He knew it would be true, obviously. But he was interested more in the idea of the "perfect triangle," to use your analogy. He was working on the heuristic method for locating morality, not on the sociological question of whether or not people would obey such a thing once it was found to exist.

Kant's system approach adopt the continuous improvement principle.
Based on the feedbacks, the sub-goals will be gradually increased toward that impossible ideals which is only a guide.
If the sub-goals are not achieved then the root-causes should be analyzed so that it can be corrected to facilitate greater improvements.
If the sub-goals are exceeded, the root cause should also be researched and if valid we increase the sub-goals within the system.

On this perspective, politics will install a legislature, judiciary and policing by borrowing and adapting moral laws and ethical maxims to regulate and enforce the behavior of society to prevent anarchy.

They will, of course. But again, why would we want "legislative, judicial and policing" laws that are contrary to morality? And by what legitimacy are these groups allowed to "enforce behaviour"? That sounds awfully Fascist, if they enforce without legitimate authority, does it not? That sounds more like rule by raw power, if it's not rule by moral rightness. And I think we hope for more of the latter than the former from our laws, do we not?

As I had mentioned the Moral and Ethics must be independent from "legislative, judicial and policing" laws which should only temporary to deal with the present circumstances where the MQ is very low and almost primal.
Kant did praise the Christian's [NT] system of morality as a better-than-nothing within then or even present circumstances of low average MQ. But ultimately Christianity's morality has to be weaned off and replaced by effective general morality and ethics like the Kantian kind.
Ultimately the rule of legislature laws while independent must be in synchrony with the moral laws embedded in the minds of the 99%.

Indeed, why should "anarchy" be prevented, in a world which contains no certain axiom, "Anarchy is evil"? Maybe anarchy is freedom, as extreme Libertarians and Anarchists would argue; or maybe anarchy is just "the state of nature," to which we all ought to revert, in which "survival of the fittest" can function maximally? Who is to know, then?

This is why we have to justify how the accepted Absolute Moral Laws are grounded. Why this moral precept should be absolute and not Hitler's or the fascist or other evil laws. [This need to be discussed]

The critical question here is how do we ground and justify what should be the Pure Absolute Moral Laws [non-theistic] that is to be applied within a personal self-regulated system. Kant provided the solutions but it is a complex subject to discuss.

But why should we think they must be "non-Theistic"? Kant didn't: according to most biographers, he was a pietistic Protestant (as Peter has already correctly pointed out). Besides, have we somehow already conclusively proved that God does not exist, so that Theism can be rationally eliminated at the start? (That's a proof I'd be keen to see.)

Or are we merely concerned that not everybody believes in Theism?

Kant is definitely not a theist as he claimed in the Critique of Pure Reason. He was a deist, i.e. a God based on reason. I believe he was most likely an atheist and perhaps a homosexual [never married and lived with a man-servant] but he had to flow with the norms and expectations of his time otherwise he would have lost his tenure and crucified by the public.

But isn't that just the point? If Theism is factually true, then it would not make any difference to Theism's accuracy as a heuristic for finding true morality; it would simply mean that when we found what true morality was, not everybody would automatically be inclined to believe in it. If I'm right, what would happen is that their ontology, (which always precedes their ethics) would mislead them, such that they would (wrongly) suppose that good things were not good, and that bad things were good. In short, they wouldn't be morally right: they would simply be morally confused.

And if there's one thing one can safely say about the field of secular ethics today, it's that it very evidently IS morally confused.

Kant asserted it is impossible to prove the existence of God as real.
Personally, God is an impossibility [proof available] and a non-starter, i.e. moot. The reason why the majority [nearly 90%] people MUST believe in a God or some form of deity is due to some existential psychological issues.

Yes, currently [since humans first emerged] humanity is in a moral mess because the average MQ [moral quotient] is very low.
But there is hope.
Note the average IQ of humanity has increased since humans first emerged.
As shown in the link above, humans has a Moral potential which is more flexible than IQ and it will take off when we are able to identify and expedite the processes involved, i.e. that is using Kantian and other effective guidelines.

It is a long response for me and note the many issues 'to be discussed' above.
But, I have a time constraint [also English] so I would try to avoid long discussions like the above.