Greetings Ham,

Well, there is the obvious problem, the sadomasochist.  Both the 
Golden Rule and Kant's Categorical Imperative seem to make their 
point-of-view permissible.  How would you define being rational?

Marsha


At 02:44 PM 9/28/2007, you wrote:

>Hi Ron, SA, David, Marsha --
>
>
>Whenever we try to apply morality to value, we run into problems.  This is
>because morality (normative ethics) is based on the 'summum bonum' principle
>of virtue as conceived by the early Greeks.  It is an attempt to quantify
>value in order to achieve what utilitarians like Jeremy Bentham called "the
>greatest good for the greatest number of people."
>
>Here is what Wikipedia says about utilitarian morality:
>
>"Since utilitarians judge all actions by their ability to maximize good
>consequences, any harm to one individual can often be justified by a greater
>gain to other individuals. This is true even if the loss for the one
>individual is large and the gain for the others is marginal, as long as
>enough individuals receive the small benefit. Thus, utilitarians deny that
>individuals have inviolable moral rights. As explained above, utilitarians
>may support legal rights or rights as rules of thumb, but they are not
>considered inherent to morality. This seems problematic to many critics of
>utilitarianism, one of whom notes that according to utilitarianism there is
>"nothing intrinsically wrong with sacrificing an important individual
>interest to a greater sum of lesser interests. That assumption is retained
>in the foundations of the theory, and it remains a source of moral concern."
>
>Notice the quantitative connotation of this philosophy -- "as long as enough
>individuals...", "...a greater sum of lesser interests...", etc.   Clearly,
>by striving to make our decisions and actions conform to a collective
>majority, we impugn the meaning of value as proprietary sensibility.  Since
>all behavioral values are represented in Nature, I find SA's moral
>imperative "being one with nature" somewhat ambiguous.
>
>I maintain that existence is an anthropocentric reality, that value
>realization is primarily a human function.  Like experience itself, all
>value is proprietary to the individual.  Your likes and interests are
>self-serving, and no amount of persuasion by other individuals, no matter
>how many or how powerful, can change your values without violating your
>freedom to choose.  Apart from the blind obedience demanded of monarchs and
>priests, values come into being by the psycho-emotional realization of the
>individual.  Social values change only when individuals change their
>valuistic perspective of reality.
>
>I am an advocate of rational self-interest, and by "rational" I mean the
>ability to discern the value (positive or negative) in applying my chosen
>course of action to mankind at large.  This has nothing to do with numbers
>or quantities of human beings.  Generally it can be described in terms of
>the Golden Rule: Do unto others what you would want them to do to you, or as
>Kant expressed it in his Categorical Imperative: "Act only according to that
>maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a
>universal law."  Underlying this principle is the value rational people
>innately sense toward their fellow man.
>
>The reality we have to deal with here is that not all people are rational;
>therefore laws must be established whereby the society may legally punish,
>incarcerate or rehabilitate those who behave in an inhumane, criminal, or
>malevolent manner.  This rule applies as well to the sovereign interests and
>behaviors of nations in the world community.
>
>If this interpretation of moral values doesn't make sense, kindly tell me
>why.
>
>Regards,
>Ham
>
>
>Moq_Discuss mailing list
>Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>Archives:
>http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/

Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/

Reply via email to