From: Owleye 




"Phil Roberts, Jr." wrote:

> Although I've read some of Kant's Critique, and all of the Cambridge Companion
> to Kant, I'm still not quite certain as to how he arrives at his categorical
> imperative.  But I believe I know a much faster route which someone here
> might wish to challenge me on.
>
> Rather than assuming that 'being rational' (in valuative/strategic/practical
> affairs) is a matter of 'being efficient' (means/end theory) or of
> 'maximizing self-interest' (egoism), abandon the self-interest assumption
> and simply assume that 'being rational' is simply a matter of 'being able
> to "see" what is going on' or 'being objective'.  If such were the case,
> then you could justify a valuative version of the imperative, i.e., 'Love
> your neighbor as you love yourself' by bringing the mountain to Mohammed
> so to speak, in that 'being rational' would be equivalent to 'being
> valuatively objective'.
>
> The justification for the "theory" of rationality I am proposing here
> would simply lie in its superior epistemic credentials, not only in its
> greater freedom from contradiction, but also in terms of its ability to
> "explain" several evolutioanry anomalies (the presence of morality and
> emotional instability in homo sapiens).
>
> --

Perhaps there is some merit to your position, but what I'm unsure about is how
you would approach "love" as in :"Love thy neighbor as thyself?"  Are you taking
a Kantian approach to this?

owleye