15.07.2009 – On "Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals" by Immanuel Kant: Applicability in the Modern World's Ethic and Politics

Yakuzza Lethecus: hey Gaya Gaya Ethaniel: Hello everyone :) Nice to see you again. Gilles Kuhn: hello Gaya Dali Waverider: hi Gaya Yakuzza Lethecus: hey starling Starling Ansar: Hay =) Gaya Ethaniel: Hello Starling :) Gilles Kuhn: well as apart of the fox of death ;-) we are almost all here Starling Ansar: Hay Gaya, ya'll Gaya Ethaniel: :) Gilles Kuhn: ok we will begin so remember everything you write will be reported to your mama and to national security too Dali Waverider: I'm not sure the FURLOSOPHER is coming. He was missing from his stone this morning, after a reboot. Gilles Kuhn: hello starling Gilles Kuhn: well let's begin then Yakuzza Lethecus: I saw him 3h ago Starling Ansar: Hello Gilles Dali Waverider: then who knows. Gaya Ethaniel: :) Gilles Kuhn: well last time we finished by a discussion about the use of Kant moral in modern settings anyone want to comment? Gaya Ethaniel: I think the application can start with accepting that at times we cannot come to an unilateral agreement at any negotiation. Gilles Kuhn: right which mean that Kant transcendence is in jeopardy and that habermas theory is bs.... Yakuzza Lethecus: hi herman Gilles Kuhn: hello herman herman Bergson: Hello every1 Starling Ansar: hay Herman Gaya Ethaniel: No I mean given the fact that each of us differ in conditioning, we are bound to disagree. Not aiming solely for an unilateral agreement can invite more relaxed discussion on matters. That's how I see Kant's theory being applied. Gaya Ethaniel: Hello herman :) Gilles Kuhn: but then if we take as accepted the fact that Kant transcendence is not perfectly working and that thus the universal term of the cat imp is relative what can we save of Kant system as moral apart in a very personal manner? Starling Ansar: nothing, logically Gilles Kuhn: well this is not boolean i hope Gaya Ethaniel: It does sound contradictory [it isn't really contradictory to Kant] I know but starting with a fixed point seems counter-productive. Starling Ansar: as a personal ie relative matter, its just a preference, with no way for anybody else to relate to it as anything more than a preferred style one *sometimes* deploys Gaya Ethaniel: It's more about accepting each opinion is/may be valid. Gilles Kuhn: the fact to start with a fixed point corresponding to your reason is at my opinion totally normal and necessary in order to have negotiation you need to know what option are Birric Forcella: Hi folks Gilles Kuhn: there is a lot of way to relate universality is not absolute anymore but is still there Gilles Kuhn: hello Birric Yakuzza Lethecus: hey Gaya Ethaniel: Hello Birric :) Dali Waverider: hiho Birric Starling Ansar: if it corresponds solely, and merely, to one's own personal reason...then how can anybody else relate to it? Birric Forcella: Sorry to be late Starling Ansar: if universality is not absolute, it's not at all universal Gilles Kuhn: because reason seems at least to be close from one person to another Gilles Kuhn: and universality remember is what you can derive from your reasoning that is limited by your own intellectual limitation Starling Ansar: when you fuzz it down to "close" doesn't that mean you're departig the realm of Reason? herman Bergson: I am sorry, I may be interruting something, but it isnt clear to me what problem you are discussing here Gilles Kuhn: so absolute universality and genuine one is only for omniscient people and as I'm not a theologian of the sorbonne I don't qualify ;-) Gilles Kuhn: Kant moral and the difficulty of his application if you disagree with the transcendence postulate Starling Ansar: so we have reduced the cogency of our discourse to "kindas" we'll be kinda universal and kinda reasonable? Birric Forcella: Well, you know my position: We need to get away from reason-based decision making and we need to base our actions on agents and agency with unbroken selves -- no superego function of reason Gilles Kuhn: agents what are agents Birric? Birric Forcella: Well, persons Birric Forcella: minds Gilles Kuhn: and actually i think that reason as capacity of inter communication is still the best shot we have Birric Forcella: deciders Gilles Kuhn: minds = reason Gilles Kuhn: reasonable minds Birric Forcella: Mind = emotions/subjectivity Gilles Kuhn: if not you have minds that are only as Kant would put it listening to heteronomics external and internal causality in contradiction of their own freedom Starling Ansar: subjectivity + facts = objectivity Birric Forcella: There is no freedom - we are forced to do what we WANT to do Gilles Kuhn: emotion is I think the worst thing to use in order to make a moral decision in that I fully agree with Kant view herman Bergson: peculiar equation, Starling Starling Ansar: thank you, Herman herman Bergson: it presupposes that there is more than subjectivity Gilles Kuhn: well Birric if you deny freedom then moral discussion is without object but indeed freedom as intelligibility is a postulate Starling Ansar: it's a gross oversimplification, but points the right way herman Bergson: then I am off the road I guess :-) Starling Ansar: No, it suggest that objectivity can be constructed with subjectivity as its primary component, or starting point. Gaya Ethaniel: "Gut feelings" can be valid indicators at times as long as one understands what they point to which is tricky. Gilles Kuhn: well I would act reflexion and suppress the blurry notion of subjectivity Gilles Kuhn: are you pointing to prefrontal syndrome Gaya? Gaya Ethaniel: I don't necessarily consider emotions subjective. One's opinions are after all subjective imo. Gaya Ethaniel: I don't know Gilles ... not familiar with the syndrome. Gilles Kuhn: how do you define subjectivity in a mental architecture star does it include reason and logical reasoning or only "gut feelings"? Birric Forcella: I'm not saying you don't take facts and logic into consideration - but the deciding factor is in every case (even for Kant as a person) your interior pleasure balance. It determines what you will support with the "reason" part of your mind. That is why we have all these different opinions and philosophies. There is no escaping from it. We might as well face it like a man and work with it instead of closing our eyes and pretending we are some kind of rational beings Gilles Kuhn: well if opinion are constructed by reason and reflexion their origin is not what I would call subjectivity Gaya Ethaniel: All I mean is it's a good idea to look into/investigate if one has a gut feeling about something rather than dismissing because it's emotion. Gilles Kuhn: look at it I agree let it entirely dominate your choice ad reverso.... Gaya Ethaniel: Sure however that opinion once related to others in social settings, it becomes subjective whether or not met with an agreement. Gilles Kuhn: as you may know Birric I totally disagree with your absolute hedonistic argument it negate reason freedom and mind Gilles Kuhn: and worst it reduce men to lonely chacals..... Starling Ansar: I think Birric doesn't oppose mind to Emotion, he sees them as one thing Gaya Ethaniel: Mind is more than emotions. &#160;Gaya Ethaniel: Birric, you are more than what you think you are :) Starling Ansar: I think recent neurological research shows Birric's view to be the correct one..the "mind" portion of the brain only starts to work *after decisions have been made elsewhere in the brain Gilles Kuhn: if in a political setting you use only as argument yourself pleasure state and wish you will not go very far and it is unlikely you will have any person listening to your arguments Birric Forcella: I think reason is constructed by opinion, not opinion by reason Birric Forcella: And it is good and glorious that way Starling Ansar: He doesn't, and neither do I, see people getting very far at all..to begin with Winston Haystack: Why would emotions be a bad form of moral response? When I see someone hurt someone else I don't deliberate about it and then respond to my thinking about it, I simply respond to the emotional or empathetic emotions. Gaya Ethaniel: Not capacity to reason Birric ... Gilles Kuhn: no starling your reason and mind part has always if you are not psychopath a veto power Starling Ansar: Gille, that's not what your biology reveals actually happens tho Gilles Kuhn: actually yes it is what biology say too! Starling Ansar: its comforting to think it does..but scanning your brain shows that's not what happens, That's just a story out brain builds to make us feel better. Birric Forcella: I know what you think about me, Gilles - and I think you are lovable that way -- but I think Kant and you assume some kind of Vulcan version of mind. It does not exist Gilles Kuhn: and about that motor decision are a good example as for more complex one neurology is about nowhere still... Starling Ansar: Not anymore, maybe 10 years ago it still did. Gaya Ethaniel: Data can trigger mind to work but the capacity isn't constructed by them. We just have it. Birric Forcella: Actually, my whole theory of free will is based on that argument Gilles Kuhn: and neurological evidence I repeat are very very fuzzy if you try to reach high cognitive functioning Starling Ansar: Now we know that decisions are made unconsciously, and our conscious storyteller *afterwards* makes up a nice story about how we "decided" to do what we did Gilles Kuhn: oh sorry but unconscious is the most badly defined word I know Birric Forcella: It is actually a very simple and elegant solution to the free-will problem Gilles Kuhn: and that kind of Orwellian revision theory in cognitive science is HEAVILY discussed Birric Forcella: I have it on the other computer, I have to type it up Starling Ansar: ok...a region of the brain we have NO Idea is operating...makes the decision, and then after that, the storytelling part makes up the "reasons" we then think we made the decision for Gilles Kuhn: I think that someone that use only is emotional part to guide his own action is as Kant well put it totally not free Starling Ansar: Its studies done with split brain patients that reveal how this mechanism function quen Oh: hi all Gaya Ethaniel: Hello quen :) long time no see! Starling Ansar: hay Quen herman Bergson: If you will excuse me.......... Birric Forcella: My point is, within our brain there is a level which makes the decision for us. Modern brain scans (I have the references) show clearly that decisions are made deep in the brain long before we are aware of them. This level in the brain makes the decision for the self in the way that the outdome, the decision, is the most desirable for the self. In this way this level in the brain Must work according to the pleasure principle as I outlined it. Gilles Kuhn: starling split brain studies reveal not a lot I think it s like trying to understand a computer that you axed in two (I mean a actual computer I don't compare brain and pc) Gilles Kuhn: hello quen Birric Forcella: In this way the brain produces EXACTLY the outcome that the self wants. After all, that is what the brain as all about, isn't it? Winston Haystack: Do you have a link to a paper on that Starling? Starling Ansar: Birric does Starling Ansar: He's more scholarly about all this in SL than Ic are to be Birric Forcella: Now, here comes the kicker: In this way the brain creates exactly the SAME outcome that would pertain if the person HAD free will. Because even with free will you cannot do anything else but what you want. Gilles Kuhn: sorry but these neurological data show nthing as we speak of decision made not in a matter of ms but after a reflexive time of thinking and that totally put out of the game these psycho exp studies Gaya Ethaniel: That is common Birric I'm sure but it doesn't necessarily mean one can't transcend that. Starling Ansar: Why would you wish to transcend your nature? Winston Haystack: What you are saying in essence, is my brain already knew what going to be said when I typed this? And my brain knew what you were going to say too? Gilles Kuhn: the fact that the brain has internal mechanism is i think irrelevant to the problem of moral choice Birric Forcella: Since the choice and judgment of the brain alone is EXACTLY the same as it would be WITH free will, actually the whole duality dissolves. Gaya Ethaniel: I wouldn't call that my true 'nature' because it's limiting Starling. Starling Ansar: Winston, your brain didn't know what anybody else would say, just you Gaya Ethaniel: My true nature is that and more. Gilles Kuhn: that s sophistry you are what you brain are inside the brain functioning is what you are to say you and your brain are different is a categoritcal error Starling Ansar: Gaya, if the outcome is the same..if the outcome is as you already experience it...what's "limiting" about it? Gaya Ethaniel: Outcomes are not same, at least in my life. Starling Ansar: But they are. Gaya Ethaniel: I disagree. Birric Forcella: Your problem, Gilles, and Kant's problem is that you always distrust your brain and your body (as you have been taught as children). You always look for something outside, some "reason" to guide you since you don't trust yourself. You never realize, however, that it is WE in the first place who decide about our ethics. So all we do when we engage in ethics is to create a smokescreen that obscures the pleasure roots of our decisions. Gilles Kuhn: wow I seems to share a position with Birric wow ;-) Winston Haystack: How can the brain know what's to be said before I do? Starling Ansar: They are if you "decided" and they are if your brain just did it naturally, and told you a nice fiction about how you "decided" Gilles Kuhn: (about brain and self) Gilles Kuhn: but reason is me is part of me Birric YOU say that reason is external which is absurd Starling Ansar: Winston, because one part of the brain decided, and then another part of your brain made up the Nice Story about how you figured it out Gaya Ethaniel: There are things that can be automated I grant you but I use such automation for certain tasks, certainly not moral decisions. Starling Ansar: the storyteller part, is unaware of the decider part Gaya Ethaniel: wb quen :) Starling Ansar: Gaya, you're looking at it *only* from your presuppositions quen Oh: thank you Gaya Ethaniel: I am mostly aware of the storytelling part though Starling. Meditations are great for seeing those. Gaya Ethaniel: I'd say meditation here is very close to exercising reason in Kant. Winston Haystack: I need evidence, or else it looks like we don't make any decisions, instead we just respond like robots Gilles Kuhn: and deciding is an act of reason if you let emotion guide you you don't decide you let your hormonal system do the job that's good when we are only canine but we evolved internal representation way more complex with language and reason Starling Ansar: Gaya, you are *only*&amp; aware of the storytelling part, because that's all you have access to Gilles Kuhn: star this theory is at best discutable Starling Ansar: Winston, but you tell yourself you used the evidenc, after the real deciding part of you decided how to use it Birric Forcella: Actually, as a reference, please google "Benjamin Libet" in Wikipedia. I can't put the whole thing in here Gaya Ethaniel: Some people are not aware of the story-telling part and shovel everything into unconscious. I disagree Starling. Gilles Kuhn: yes I know libet article but i disagree with a lot of his conclusion and we can indeed take thelm asx theme in the future Starling Ansar: Gilles, you're not deciding with your "Reason" you're making up a story about using the "reason" to decide what your brain had always long before decided to do Gilles Kuhn: look star I AM my brain ! ok this reasoning is sophistry Starling Ansar: Gaya, everything you are saying to me, never leaves the box of your presuppositions, you have not moved one millimeter towards understanding what Birric and I are telling you about at all. Winston Haystack: Can you give me a link to some article? Birric Forcella: You are misunderstanding something - of course the brain does listen to input from the outside and it also uses its native logic and reason - but that happens in the service of its emotional desires. Now in that way it comes up with a decision. If there is new input or mre considerations, then the whole process starts again - again in the service of emotions - and you change your mind Gaya Ethaniel: I reason therefore I am heheheheh Starling Ansar: comforting prejudice that, Gaya Birric Forcella: I can't open the Internet on this comptuer. Just google Benjamin Libet. How hard is that? Gaya Ethaniel: I see it so it's not a prejudice personally. But I accept it can be one to you Starling. Gilles Kuhn: and if I put a paper in front of me and write down possibilities then use a logical trick like Kant cat imp then I aparently decide out of my brain no ? mmmh well that what language i e reason give us that gave us freedom to choose even if we don't use it then your theory could apply (for some retards it does need) Birric Forcella: He is the researcher who showed clearly that your decisions are made in your brain BEFORE you are aware of them quen Oh: I am not my brain, certainly not my physical brain only, I am my whole physical self, I am my emotions and I am my thinking world with thought forms, and I hope to even be more than that Gilles Kuhn: I totally disagree with libt theory it is only about MOTOR Movement bloody hell Gaya Ethaniel: So ... Birric? What he says is the universal truth? Starling Ansar: Gilles, yes, apaprently..because what *is* apparent is the story you keep telling yourself. Gilles Kuhn: and all the libet experimental protocol is totally discutable he relied on subjective a posteriori impression of his subject !!!!! Starling Ansar: anyways, I think we all agree to disagree about this Gaya Ethaniel nods @ quen. Brain and more ... much more. quen Oh: that is me, because that is how I perceive me; I cannot reduce my perception to less without losing awareness of it all Birric Forcella: The point is this, Gilles: My position leads to the considerations put forward in "Birric on Ethics." It leads to a social theory which can reduce pain and suffering, while Kant can only produce more prisons. Gilles Kuhn: Birric find me a single possibility to use Kant to make more prison what you say its absurd Starling Ansar: people violating the cat imp...is why others build prisons for them Gilles Kuhn: and it is not about agreeing and disagreeing but about reasoning and confronting reasonable position Gaya Ethaniel: cat imp is not a law I thought? Gaya Ethaniel: Not something we impose on other or something we need to follow whether to accept or no. Gilles Kuhn: I'm sorry star but prison are the product of law that are by def heteronomic entities so sorry but I don't see your point Starling Ansar: Gaya, the *thinking* of the cat imp is what most lawmakers base their building prisons on Gaya Ethaniel: Starling ... think you got the definition of Kant's cat imp wrong. Gilles Kuhn: ah that's new could you elaborate in a reasonable ie argumented and understandable way ? Birric Forcella: Kant's position, Gilles, will create more laws. The more people obey the Cat Imp, the more additional laws will be created, Gilles. My position will abolish laws. Just think about this: Let's assume everybody starts obeying every law on the book tomorrow. What will our ethicists do? Will they say: "Nice, have a cookie?" No, they will say that current laws are too easy and that we need to make tougher ones. Thus ethics will always put more people in prison. Look at history. Gilles Kuhn: but if you apply the cat imp you don't need external law have you bloody read or listened to any of our former discussion? Birric Forcella: Ethics is merely a big scheme to rationalize suffering and violence by the powerful Birric Forcella: Not suffering by the powerful. Suffering by the weak and violence by the powerful Gaya Ethaniel: Why are we keep talking about ethics that is not on metaphysical level as per the text? Starling Ansar: Criminals are, by definition, not philosophers who go around *applying* the cat imp Gilles Kuhn: bloody hell all Kant moral rely on the fact that external enforced moral heteronomic one are wrong and you dare to say that his position will create more law that is ridiculous Starling Ansar: because they do not apply it, people who do, use the cat imp to legitimize throwing them in jail quen Oh: ethics is a way to reflect on how to form relationships between people amongst themselves and towards the rest of their surroundings Birric Forcella: Gilles, the Cat Imp is an internal law. Have you read it? "Can serve as a basis for general law." - it's basically a charter for obsessive compulsive neurotics Starling Ansar: lol Gilles Kuhn: but you confound personal moral which is the subject of Kant and political law making ! quen Oh: it is only a way to rationalise the wrong if you want it to be only that Birric Birric Forcella: The more rituals obsessives keep, the more they create - that is what our governments do Starling Ansar: Gilles, we're saying the one leads to the other Birric Forcella: Yes, Gilles, I do confound those two - because in every practical regard NOBODY can keep them apart Gilles Kuhn: but you are dishonestly manipulating a text to make it say the reverse of what he say Starling Ansar: not really, not at all Winston Haystack: “Can't we all get along?” -Rodney King ..HAHA Gaya Ethaniel: :) quen Oh: ethics is about relationships, responsibility, service and freedom.. not about not about rituals, I don't see what you mean Birric Birric Forcella: Gilles, show me a SINGLE "moral" person who lives by the Cat Imp (or thinks he does that) who is not ALSO trying to make his own precepts a GENERAL prescription (Just as the Cat Imp says) Starling Ansar: if you "Will that it should become a universal law"...there's where you go buy prison building supplies Starling Ansar: lol Winston Starling Ansar: Birric, exactly Gilles Kuhn: ah yes ? you forget all the cat imp are based on universalisation due to the freedom of the individual freedom residing in his capacity of reason if you deny the reason capacity then we have no more object to speak about Birric Forcella: Alright, Gilles, I will plead guilty to that offense. However, I would charge you then with wide-eyed idealism. Please show me a SINGLE case where somebody could keep the Cat Imp private. Dali Waverider: There's this cognitive dissonance of the peaceful setting of Kira Cafe, and the explosive fireworks of the fierce debate. Birric Forcella: My point exactly is that Kant is impossible. These ideas are a millstone around the neck of society. Gilles Kuhn: Birric a reasonnable person will understand as isay today at the beginning that our universality is limited by our intelect and so that it is absurd to try to enforce all our moral decision to pthers Dali Waverider: Michael Bay would blow some stuff up. [Gaya Ethaniel: It's not that difficult not to impose one's opinions on others Birric. I don't know why you think it totally impossible. Starling Ansar: fierce? nahh this is passionate =) Birric Forcella: But people do, Gilles. What alternate reality do you live in? Starling Ansar: Gaya, we think it's impossible because we have never seen it happen. Birric Forcella: I have to go. I am going to have two teeth pulled in 15 minutes. Gilles Kuhn: and enforcing is contradictory with the idea of men as reasonable agent to be treated always as END and never as MEANS that is too part of the cat imp but that part you seems to willingly forget Gaya Ethaniel: I'm sorry to hear that Starling ... Birric Forcella: I'll leave Birric here Birric Forcella: See you next time Gaya Ethaniel: Bye Birric Dali Waverider: see ya. Winston Haystack: OUCH!! Dali Waverider: ouch. hope you get good drugs. Gilles Kuhn: I don't speak of reality I speak of a problem of philosophy that is the problem of moral choice the fact that people don't use it is not part of the debate Gilles Kuhn: bye Birric Gaya Ethaniel: It is rare but I've met many who *strive* to be such. Starling Ansar: I have seen many strive, but the most libertarian people I know still do it Gaya Ethaniel: Well ... the standard Kant set out I believe is something to strive for yet impossible to achieve totally. Gilles Kuhn: and fierce debate is not a problem for me actually to quote piet is like arefining fire.... Winston Haystack: I don't know anyone who deliberates when they make moral decisions, rather, they just respond to the situation either from emotions or to appear helpful. Gaya Ethaniel: Don't you think things over? Sit alone and work stuff out? [unless emergency] Gaya Ethaniel: Emergency as in flight/fight situations Dali Waverider: I find it a bit strange that the opposing sides of this debate are not arguing so much about the proper role of government and law in society, but rather the underlying decision-making process for the individual. I see advantages and disadvantages to both points of view, but in the end would seek to form some consensus. Gilles Kuhn: hell I always think and a lot and with themore time possible when making moral decisions Gilles Kuhn: well Dali as we spoke of moral of the individual agent is quite logical the part to apply that to politic is a second degree Gaya Ethaniel: Sorry thought we are talking about applying Kant in modern times, not about politics. Winston Haystack: Gilles, don't you just know what to do in a moral situation? Thinking about it when it shows up seems a bit disingenuous Dali Waverider: well, it was sais that one application is indeed political. Gilles Kuhn: is for that that I think about morals problems a lot in theory so when I have a situation I have already thought of her or at least a close relative.... Gaya Ethaniel: Can you explain what you mean by 'just know' Winston? Gilles Kuhn: which must I say make fail totally b libet argument Winston Haystack: What if Birric is right about the decision/awareness delay for moral decisions? That would throw a wrench in moral responsibility, wouldn't it. So, rather than writing him off, we should investigate it. Gaya Ethaniel: I'm not writing off. Are those decisions something one acquired from parents, society and institutions? For this point precisely, I think one should 'reason' the decision making process, question and see if the decision is made by own not by others. Gilles Kuhn: well I don't remember this part but I have not read his text since some time Winston Haystack: “Just Know” I see someone stealing a baby's candy, and I respond rather than think in the moral situation. I just know what to do and how to respond Starling Ansar: Winston, yeah he kinda blows responsibility out of the water, in one sense Gilles Kuhn: but anyway yes I would enjoy to see him once as the defendant Gilles Kuhn: and I have proposed him to do so when we finish our Kant marathon Gilles Kuhn: and then if you want we can indeed try libet IF I find his texts on the net Gilles Kuhn: so all can read them Dali Waverider: Both a moral/authoritarian approach and a hedonistic/anarchistic approach work well with homegeneous groups. Neither does very well with divergent populations. Gaya Ethaniel: What text? Gaya Ethaniel: Winston surely you sometime in the past thought or was told/accepted such a situation is immoral, hence an ability to action relatively simultaneously on the spot. Gilles Kuhn: btw time up for the formal part Gaya Ethaniel: Birric's text is on the wiki - [] Gaya Ethaniel: I need to go too. Enjoyed the discussion, thank you :) Winston Haystack: Gaya, I have been in numerous moral situations that I would never had thought of, but when I am, I don't have to think about it, I just respond empathetically rather than have any pre-or current deliberation quen Oh: bye Gaya, see you later :-) Dali Waverider: Haven't we all followed "reason" (or observed someone else following "reason") to some absurd end, and then discarded the result intuitively? Gilles Kuhn: bye Gaya Dali Waverider: bye bye Gaya Ethaniel: I know those times Winston and agree. I do the same for certain cases. Those may lie beyond mind we talked about today though. Gaya Ethaniel waves.