From: "Phil Roberts, Jr." 




Owleye wrote:
> 
> "Phil Roberts, Jr." wrote:
> 
> 
> Well, this concept of reductionism that you refer to is hardly what morality is 
> all about in Kant's duty-based moral theory.  

Right.  Kant felt morality was a matter of doing one's duty, that rationality was
a matter of following rules.  But, like my notion of valuative objectivity, his
imperative mandates self-sacrifice.  And, in this sense, "love your neighbor as 
you love yourself' and the categorical imperative are bedfellows, and on the 
opposite side of the fence from those theories of morality which attempt to
justify it in terms of enlightened self interest.  Where you see difference I
see similarity, perhaps.  Both would entail treating others and one's self
more less equally, the one out of duty, the other out of love or value.

> Kant's social contract theory is used 
> in his Doctrine of Justice (or Doctrine of Right) to provide a basis for a 
> society based on external laws
> of freedom.  

Understood.  Enlightened self-interest, and therefore not a matter of ethical
theory, but perhaps political theory instead.

> In any case, altruism is not even close to what Kant has in mind as 
> a basis for morality.  

Close in the sense that both entail a notion of self-sacrifice.  Different
in the sense that one is a matter of what you do and the other a matter of 
what you are.

> What you speak to seems more closely related to a utilitarian or at 
> least a utility-based system.
> 

Utilitarianism also entails self-sacrifice, so I see it as on the other 
side of the fence from theories which attempt to derive morality from
prudence, which seek to justify morality in terms of self-interest. 
But there is also a large difference.  Utilitarianism assumes that 
pleasure is the aim of rationality, whereas my theory assumes that 
rationality is a matter of 'being able to "see" what is going on'.
As such, I believe my own theory can probably better survive criticisms
which have been leveled against utilitarianism, although I have not as
yet had it subjected to such arguments by others, so I can't say how
well it would survive.

> 
> I can be sympathetic to your position though I would need to have a 
> better understanding
> how sacrifice is to be understood.
> 

Strictly as a scientific point, sacrifice would be anything which tends
to benefit the inclusive fitness of others at the expense of one's own
inclusive fitness.  However, for purposes of understanding this a little
better, it is extremely important to understand that most occasions of
PHYSICAL self-sacrifice, which IS naturalistically anomalous, are motivated
by EMOTIONAL self-interest.  Since only the physical is problematic from
a scientific standpoint (DNA being the physical stuff that it is), what 
is really necessary is some understanding of what purpose is being served
by emotional self-interst.  This is a major enigma in natural science at
this time, and is one I believe my own theory of rationality can address 
in a far better fashion than Kant, or Rawls, or anyone else I am aware of.

> > Thanks for your questions.
> 
> I detect certain elements of sociobiology or evolutionary psychology in your post.  Is this
> what you are basing morality on?
>

That's because you are a perceptive fellow.    :)

The entire theory began, not with an attempt to do philosophy, but rather 
with an attempt to understand a naturalistic anomaly, the presence of 'feelings 
of worthlessness' in nature's most rational naturally selected species.   

-- 

                  Phil Roberts, Jr.

       The Psychodynamics of Genetic Indeterminism:
Why We Turned Out Like Captain Kirk Instead of Mr. Spock
     http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/dada/90/