From: Owleye 




"Phil Roberts, Jr." wrote:

> 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.

I don't see how it is called self-sacrifice to do one's duty, though it depends on what you
think sacrifice is (and perhaps what self-interest is).  Doing one's duty for its own sake or
doing what's right because it's right is based on imperatives being categorical, not
hypothetical.   Kant would disavow any notion that we ought to do something out of love or
value.  His is not a consequentialist theory, which yours seems to be.  On the other  hand, if
you are not thinking of this along the lines of consequentialism, then it might very well be the
case that you are the same as Kant in treating people as ends and not merely as a means to an
end.  If this is the case, then I'm not sure what you are objecting to in Kant.

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

Well, yes and no.  The basis for political society is grounded in laws of freedom and thus might
avoid positivist theories of external law (thus, having a natural law basis), but I'll grant
that his liberalism is pretty much along the lines of the command theory of law put forward by
John Austin.

>
> 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.

Well, pleasure is not the only utilitarian principle.  There are others as well.  I'll wait to
respond to this to allow you to explain what you are talking about.

>
> 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.

What is inclusive fitness?  What does "others" mean?  The same question regarding "one's own?"
What do these things mean, scientifically?

> 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.

Are you suggesting that morality is based on emotions?  Are we to look at emotions, then, and
not to rationality to understand it?   What does "self" mean in "self-interest?"  Does it bear
any resemblance to "one's own" and is to be treated as opposing "others?"  If so, I await with
interest your response to the previous questions.

> 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.

Perhaps you might be able to explain the role of biology in instances of domestic violence?  How
would you approach this as if biology told you something about it being right or wrong?

owleye