---thanks, willytex; for pointing out this excellent wiki-entry. I don't think Kant gives a complete explanation. He could be missing some key points, one of which is that "good" actions are somehow connected to "ffffeeeeeellllllliiiinnnngggg gggggooooooodddddd"; in an overall scheme; which is not to say, that in the short run, a mugger can't get a rush by mugging a 104 year old and stealing her purse. But in the long run (sometimes the very long run); karmic repercussions will richochet around the universe, coming back to the doer; & generating a mirror action of the original. Through an arduous process of trial and error, happiness is seen to be connected to feelings, logic, & conscience. However, the entire learning process can be short-circuited to a certain extent by taking a vertical dive through the layered encrustations of existence. This enables the evolutionary scientist to cognize something quite revolutionary (no...not "Being"): DHARMA, or Natural Law. I don't think that Kant grasped the significance of Natural Law. He refers to a type of Platonic Ideal, a slightly different concept. Here's what Kant says: [wiki]:
With regard to morality, Kant argued that the source of the good lies not in anything outside the human subject, either in nature or given by God, but rather only the good will itself. A good will is one that acts from duty in accordance with the universal moral law that the autonomous human being freely gives itself. This law obliges one to treat humanity understood as rational agency, and represented through oneself as well as others as an end in itself rather than (merely) as means. [email protected], "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Mr. Magoo wrote: > > Not entirely, nature gives us two resources to 'check' > > behavior... > > > Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals: > > Immanuel Kant's Categorical imperative > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant >
