From: Owleye 




"Phil Roberts, Jr." wrote:

>
> I see the Golden Rule as one of many implicit appeals to self-interest, and as
> such not a moral rule at all.

Wow!  You may be the only one on the planet who sees it that way.  Have you ever spoken
with a Christian on this subject?  How do you see it as self-interest?

>
> I suppose, but I don't really see it as an imperative but rather as a THEORY about
> rationality which just happens to entail that 'being rational' is synonymous with
> 'being moral', i.e., that 'being rational' equates with 'being valuatively objective'.

No.  Kant permits us to have an evil will.  Moreover, rationality used as a means to some
end is problematic in connection with the end, according to Kant.  Only actions based on
categorical maxims (i.e., categorical intentions or policies) can be moral for Kant.  Duty
to the moral law is an imperative for humans because they are not entirely rational
creatures.  If they were, it wouldn't be called an imperative.  Kant, of course, would not
call it a theory, so much as the employment of speculative reason confronting difficulties
in reconciling reason with itself.  Theory is a term that is reserved for scientific
judgments and has a very modern ring to it.  Kant was a philosopher of science par
excellence.  In the realm of metaphysics, on which Kant spends a great deal of time
exploring, he develops a systematic account for the possibility of metaphysics within the
bounds of pure reason.  This is what is meant by the Critique of Pure Reason, employed
theoretically and employed practically as well as in his Critique of Judgment.  Regarding
what he means by "objective" we must be careful.  Kant shows that the mind is capable of
objective judgments (judgements about objects) (i.e., scientific judgements) but such
judgements are only about the phenomenal world, not the world as it is in itself.  The
world of objects in themselves cannot be known about, but we can reason in such a way that
we can identify this world as the world of freedom.  It is freedom that makes morality
possible.  Reason is capable of straddling nature and freedom.  Kant argues that free
practical reason (will) is sovereign over human conduct.

>
> GIVEN that 'being rational' is a matter of 'being able to "see" what is going on',
> i.e., of 'being objective, then it follows that 'being rational' is a matter
> of 'being valuatively objective', i.e., 'being good'.  What could be simpler?

Well, you will have to tell me how we are able to see what is going on objectively.  If
you deviate from Kant's account I will be able to notice it.  In particular Kant reasoned
that we are not able to understand or "see" moral conduct.  That is, we can't "see" our
intentions.  If you think humans can do this, I welcome how its possible.

> Then you should also be aware that none of your questions are problematic for
> sociobiologists, or at least are manageable and have already been workded out
> to scientists satisfaction.  My theory BEGINS where sociobiology leave off.

In that case you should have no trouble telling me what sociobiologists are saying.  I
have grave reservations about the subject matter, particularly since I don't have any idea
what it could be.  Could it be a gene, a population, or some other.  I have seen
Hamilton's metric and it makes some sense.  Trivers as well makes sense.  But these
scientists are very careful not to extrapolate from their findings.  Indeed venturing into
human behavior is fraught with difficulties.

>
> You're right.  The importance of sociobiology is that it makes human nature
> even more enigmatic than originally supposed, some much so, that it resulted
> in Richard Dawkins throwing up his hands and calling for an ADDENDUM to
> natural selection, a theory of the 'meme', to supplement the theory of
> the 'gene'.  That's basically what my own theory purports to be, a means
> of bridging the explanatory gap between the "ruthless selfishness" predicted
> by Hamilton's calculus and the benevolent selfishness we find in ourselves.

I await your account of the bridge, then.   As I indicated, I will be focussing on how you
overcome the problem of the Naturalist Fallacy, which in case you are wondering, is the
fallacy that occurs from reasoning about the world as it is and concluding something about
the world as it should be.

owleye