Do you believe in fate?

I guess we have to evaluate our own. sometimes it's OK if we think one thing is right and others think the opposite but at other times it can't work. Then you just seem to have to trust to reason and instinct ie most of us think murder is wrong but clearly many people believe it can be justified.

Hello,

I think I'm starting to tune in to this discussion. Are we saying that morals are relative?

Hows about ethics? or Values.

Do you suppose that there is at least one thing under the sun that is always right?

--no matter what.

Kant's categorical imperative

Good questions Sancho. I suppose that could be one way to describe my point of view. I don't think there is one thing that is always right because there will always be someone to disagree.

But is it in the agreement / disagreement of a human mind that makes something wrong / right?

Kant's categorical imperative is rather inflexible to my mind. I'm sure there are many situations where it would be best to do what you would not will to become a universal law. Lying is a good example. In some cases, it is right to lie, in others not. The categorical imperative does seem to treat people as types rather than individuals. It is far too restrictive in my opinion.

Where ethics, values, and morals are concerned, rightness, I would think has to be in the agreement/disagreement of the human mind.

Ethics, values and morals are afterall a uniquely human endevour.

I think.

Always telling the truth is a good example of why Kant's Categorical Imperitive doesn't work.

The classic example is: When the Nazis are at the front door demanding to know where you've hidden the Jews, It'd be a great time to tell a fib.

I think Kant would say, "Well you just don't say anything at all." But I don't think that would work too well in practice either.

But I'm still holding hope that there is at least one ethical dilemma under the sun that everyone can agree on.

*embarassed*
I am not familiar with Kant's categorical imperative. Please enlighten me.

I’m not so sure I totally understand it either. But since I’m sitting here in the middle of the night, a hopeless insomniac, and Kant’s “Critique of Practical Reason” is a well known insomnia cure, I’m willing to give it a go. Trying to explain it may help me to better understand it.

Immanuel Kant was an 18th century German (Prussian) Enlightenment Thinker. His theories are best described as “rationalist” as opposed to David Hume’s “sentimentalist” thought.

Kant first described a “hypothetical imperative;” which is sort of a natural causation of actions. It’s like the old Fortran programming commands: IF – THEN – ELSE. It can even be reflexive. IF I am hungry THEN I should eat that cheese burger ELSE I will remain hungry. Or less reflexive, IF I always tell the truth THEN people will think of me as a trustworthy person.

A Categorical Imperative by contrast is a moral action that is always right in and of itself; no IFS ANDS or BUTS. Simply stated: “Act in such a way that the maxim of your action would be instituted as a universal moral law.” As you can see the categorical imperative can be problematic in practice.

And it’s kinda hard to say with a straight face after a couple of whiskies.

I think there must be some absolute truth. Majority thinking does not make a thing true or not. Some truths are true no matter what others depend on the situation which is why the law always changes. As people we have to decide as best we can what truth is true and relevent when, just cus we can't agree doesn't mean that some of us aren't right. Therefore for each situation there must be a truth.

Thank you Sancho. I think I understand. I will ponder over it further and maybe even find some more reading material. This is interesting.

Whoohooo, the insomnia cure worked again.

Cassandra, I think you summed that up beautifully, much unlike my incoherent ramblings.

“The truth is just the truth and you can’t really have an opinion about the truth.” While that works for mathematics, it’s hotly debated in ethics. There may be an undiscovered Stone Age tribe of folks in the Andes who don’t believe in the equilateral triangle, but A-squared plus B-squared still equals C-squared regardless of their opinion.

With ethics it’s a whole new ball game. If there is a Categorical Imperative, a Universal truth or an Absolute truth -- who gets to decide what it is? (Agreement/disagreement in the human mind) There seems to be too many variables to prove it mathematically correct for all situations. So (as you said) we’re back to a situation dependent truth.

Now I’m going to try to extricate myself from this philosophic quagmire I’ve gotten myself into to and try to tie this discussion back into literature. I once read somewhere that Hemingway, in order to deal with writer’s block, would sit down and write the first true sentence that he could think of. As he got older it became more and more difficult for him to think of one true sentence. Ultimately, this frustration may have had a hand in leading to his decision to commit suicide.

As I understand it, the Pythagoras Theorem might not apply to quadrilateral triangles in non-Euclidean geometry.

Good one!

AP, English please? :-))

Sancho, that's interesting, I didn't know Hemingway committed suicide.