My way of approaching to God

[yerazhishda]

Re: My way of approaching to God

Do you think that Categorical Imperatives - as understood by Kant - can be the foundation of a morality that is not based on God? Or are they, from a moral point of view. just a "modern" interpretation of what is called "God?"

I do not think that Categorical Imperatives work as an atheistic paradigm (although it does work theologically speaking); following a "morality of duty and obligation" is again a subjective choice or wish no better or worse than choosing a Machiavellian/Nietzschean "might equals right" mentality. There is nothing that compels you to act in a certain way. Sure, you can follow a morality of self-sacrifice or hedonism or of the religion of neo-humanism and science-worship but without a God these moralities break down into absurdity: i.e. the Nietzshcean idea of eternal reccurrence, or the Sartrean "nausea" of existence. Thus, discussion of morality without God is almost laughable

I'm currently reading a book called "Does God Exist?" by a German Catholic theologian named Hans Küng. It deals with this very subject and I highly reccomend it to anyone interested.

[Sip]

Re: My way of approaching to God

.. but without a God these moralities break down into absurdity: i.e. the Nietzshcean idea of eternal reccurrence, or the Sartrean "nausea" of existence. Thus, discussion of morality without God is almost laughable

This makes no sense. Even a basic utilitarian view is enough to establish that morality can exist without a God.

[yerazhishda]

Re: My way of approaching to God

This makes no sense. Even a basic utilitarian view is enough to establish that morality can exist without a God.

Utilitarianism is not enough to establish an atheistic paradigm because it cannot answer why "happiness" should be a proper standard of value in the first place.

[jgk3]

Re: My way of approaching to God

You don't need a belief in God to understand that we all want to be happy and don't want to suffer.

There you go, utilitarianism is back in the game.

[yerazhishda]

Re: My way of approaching to God

You don't need a belief in God to understand that we all want to be happy and don't want to suffer.

There you go, utilitarianism is back in the game.

Even if you can prove that we all want to be happy (which is inherently impossible b/c of so many factors) this does not necessarily mean that happiness should be the standard of value for a code of ethics, as shown in Kant's Categorical Imperative. The question "do I want to be happy?" begs the question "do I want to live in the first place?".

[Sip]

Re: My way of approaching to God

Utilitarianism is not enough to establish an atheistic paradigm because it cannot answer why "happiness" should be a proper standard of value in the first place.

Similarly, theism does not explain compassion for one another as human beings. At the very least, care of the offspring (such as the mother's love for her child) does not stem from belief in God. How do you explain such compassion and the morality it inevitably entails?

For example, in many species, especially in humans, the parents will even go as far as sacrificing themselves to ensure "happiness" (utility?) of their children. This is more of an instinctive behavior rather than anything that derives from any belief in Gods.

[jgk3]

Re: My way of approaching to God

Even if you can prove that we all want to be happy (which is inherently impossible b/c of so many factors) this does not necessarily mean that happiness should be the standard of value for a code of ethics, as shown in Kant's Categorical Imperative. The question "do I want to be happy?" begs the question "do I want to live in the first place?".

As sip brought up, the context of this happiness/utility involves compassion, our devotion and concern to the happiness and well being of others. It is this trait in us that leads us to feel happy in the end. What we are talking about here isn't about temporary pleasures as being a standard of value for a code of ethics.

We still all want to be happy, but there are two approaches to understanding this. The first is to firstly think of ourselves attaining a level of happiness through a given pursuit, and the other is to firstly think of others attaining a level of happiness thanks to our efforts and collaboration.

The first leads to hedonism, the second towards compassion. I bring this up because in my opinion, if your approach is the second one (compassion), it does not so easily lead you to ask "do I want to live in the first place" (if you do ask yourself this, you won't resort to cynicism to provide your answer because if you know you can help make others happy with your actions in daily life, you will always say yes), it doesn't lead us to nihilism, because we have an understanding, a feeling that our existence is inherently valuable because it could make others happy, it could improve the life of an organism much larger than our own individual self. And we feel the benefits of this, it makes us happy, and yet, we did not pursue our own individual happiness to begin with.

I wholeheartedly agree that an understanding of utilitarianism that is devoid of concepts of compassion, concern for others, empathy, etc... has no reason to affirm that "happiness" (or whatever shallow scrapings of it that would be left as a result of such a view) should be a standard of value for a code of ethics.

Do you see where I'm getting at?