David Hume’s overall theory was that “our ideas reach no further than our experience”. So basically, what he tried to explain was that the mind works based on a posteriori, is that not what Descartes believed? Did he not constantly argue that in order for us to think or dream of something, even if it’s not necessarily real, at some point it mush have been real, for out thoughts have had to have some basis or foundation. To me, these theories about a priori and a posteriori are pretty complicated. It’s as if, these philosophers had some broad ideas about “why” things are, yet they lacked the ability to accurately decipher them; I mean sure, we can all come up with logical reasons for the existence of things, and we can all really believe in these explanations, yet that does not necessarily make them correct at least not one hundred percent.
Then there is the whole concept of behaviorism which was discussed today in class; there was this whole debate going on about the validity and morality of this concept. Behaviorism to me is clear but only up to a certain point. Sure I can get the idea of there being universal laws, but that does not mean they are always morally correct. Then there is what Estrada called Categorical Imperative rules which are rules with no exemptions and which everybody must or at least are expected to follow. So then, the whole Nazi example was brought up, about how if asked if you were hiding Jews in your home, and you were, then because of universal law, you were obligated to answer that indeed you were hiding Jews, of course, this did not justify the action and make it morally correct. At this point the whole idea of universal law was contradicted, for if something “is” a “universal law’ it is expected to be something morally correct and therefore everybody must follow it; but putting it in a situation where following the law makes your actions immoral, diminishes the purpose of universal law and categorical imperative rules. In conclusion, all of these concepts are very complex and could keep on being elaborated forever, though that does not prove them true. It would be better if there were validated evidence, not just theories, to back these arguments up.
Deni Stritch | 04-Oct-06 at 4:23 pm | Permalink
I’m going to have to agree with you, that validated evidence would seem to make these ideas more clear, but I think that one of the points that was trying to be made in class was that there are certain things which humans will continue to discuss that cannot be backed up by empirical data. That is why the split between the analytic (by definition) and the synthetic (in need of the empirical data we are both searching for) came about. I wasn’t perfectly clear on the categorical imperative either, especially once the Nazi example was addressed. But the way I took it, or the closest I can come, a statement such as “you must never lie,” may not be a categorical imperative because of situations like the Nazi coming to your house in search of jews. It’s definition is that you only act on those maxims you can will to universal law. So because you cannot will “never tell a lie, no matter what” to universal law, it is not a categorical imperative? I don’t know if this is even in the realm of what professor Estrada was trying to get across, but that is how I interpreted the class discussion.
Greg Frazier | 04-Oct-06 at 4:41 pm | Permalink
Deni-
I think a lot of people are confused on the same subject. With the Nazi example, according to Kant, it would be moral to tell the truth, and therefore the categorical imperative would still hold. It is important to understand that the categorical imperative does not represent what most people actually think is moral. Most people would rather save a life then commit one forgivable lie.
Certainly with any rules for morality an exception could be found. Take the Ten Commandments for example. One of them is “Honor your father and mother.” But what if your father wants to have sex with you? Does God really want us to be raped because it is the moral thing to honor your father? I would certainly hope not.
I hope that clears up some of your confusion. It seems natural for people to disagree with Kant’s categorical imperative because of situations like the Nazi coming to your door. That doesn’t mean you’re immoral, or Kant is immoral, it just means you have different ideas of what is moral.