<p>Also, be chary, for Korsgaard was Rawls's student, and he had perhaps the most thorough understanding of Kantian ethics.</p>
<p>I think Rawls' categorical imperatives are silly too. ;-)</p>
<p>"There are multiple ways for Planck's constant or having moral laws to be intrinsic properties of the universe, and everything being put there by God is only one such way. Nephilim asserted that morality can only be inherent in the universe in one way -- God put it there. I was saying that isn't so."</p>
<p>What is another way?</p>
<p>"I myself am a "moral naturalist": my view is that moral rules derive from society's enforcement of certain norms (and yes, this entails moral relativism and a denial that there is such a thing as a categorical imperative). Any other philosophical analysis of morality suffers from the following problem. The philosopher goes through a lengthy (and usually unsound) argument explaining why there is a categorical imperative that binds you to do this and that. You say "so what?" and go on doing what you are doing."</p>
<p>Just because people can say "so what?" to a moral absolute doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Upholding the truth is more more important than upholding whatever happens to "work". </p>
<p>Note: The Emperor's Club is a good movie that is all about this issue.</p>
<p>Other Note: Most everyone who believes in moral absolutes also believes in some kind of consequence in the afterlife or next life, so they can't really just say "so what?"</p>
<p>
[quote]
Just because people can say "so what?" to a moral absolute doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But it denies them normative force, which is the basis of any moral obligation or duty.</p>
<p>
[quote]
[quote]
Just because people can say "so what?" to a moral absolute doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But it denies them normative force, which is the basis of any moral obligation or duty.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's true. If someone denies a so-called moral absolute then that "absolute" can only be defended by its proponents, and this quickly reduces to a very subjective form of morality.</p>
<p>The problem is that the question of "are ethics subjective?" is itself a matter of opinion.</p>
<p>well, obviously.</p>
<p>I didn't read the whole discussion about this philosophy thing, but catched up some phrases:
[quote]
See Ken Binmore's Natural Justice for why Kant and his followers are mostly ridiculous.
[/quote]
I would be careful with such statements. Kant and his categorical imperative are often misunderstood. Kant was <em>not</em> the one who said "you ought to do this and that". His categorical imperative cannot be thought of as a dictation. Instead, Kant <em>analyzed</em> how our reason assesses moral actions; the categorical imperative is the general principle of the functionality of our reason.
[quote]
The philosopher goes through a lengthy (and usually unsound) argument explaining why there is a categorical imperative that binds you to do this and that. You say "so what?" and go on doing what you are doing.
[/quote]
What do you try to show us here? In how far does this pose a problem to "any other philosophical analysis of morality"? I think two things are mixed up here: (1) the analysis of moral standards, and (2) the realization and the compliance with moral rules.</p>
<p>Moral relativism is, in my eyes, untenable. There are two reasons I would like to mention:
(1) If morality really depends on culture/society/history, then what's wrong with Nazism, slavery, colonialism, terrorism, Stalinism, etc., etc.?</p>
<p>(2) Moral relativism <=> ethics are subjective
However, the second part is a contradiction in itself. Ethics are by definition general.</p>
<p><a href="1">quote</a> If morality really depends on culture/society/history, then what's wrong with Nazism, slavery, colonialism, terrorism, Stalinism, etc., etc.?
[/quote]
The desire to find some universal law (as opposed to our own society's judgment) to justify our dislike for Nazism or asparagus is not a good reason to think such a law exists.</p>
<p><a href="2">quote</a> Moral relativism <=> ethics are subjective
However, the second part is a contradiction in itself. Ethics are by definition general.
[/quote]
Fine, but then your definition of ethical principles as "generally applicable, universal moral laws" might be such that such things do not exist. (E.g.: If you define broobles as integers that are prime perfect squares, then broobles do not exist.) If you define ethics in this way, that would be my position.</p>
<p>Hi Ben,</p>
<p>
[quote]
Fine, but then your definition of ethical principles as "generally applicable, universal moral laws" might be such that such things do not exist.
[/quote]
It is a pity I am not too familiar with modern ethical philosophy. I don't really want to talk about something I am not completely familiar with. However, your statement is almost comparable with nihilism. Let it put me in another way: it is <em>much</em>, <em>much</em> easier to say that there are no "generally applicable, universal moral laws" than trying to find them (E.g.: it is much easier to state that Fermat's last theorem is unprovable than to prove it). Your statement would <em>only</em> be acceptable if you could be sure that there aren't any universal laws. So how can you be sure of that?</p>
<p>PS: Maybe this is all getting a bit too off-topic. I don't really want to start/restart a philosophical discussion ;). Interesting topic, though.</p>
<p>That is a good point, and I strongly recommend reading Ken Binmore's Natural Justice -- for he analyzes your question in extreme depth. I agree that the denial of a universal moral law might just be lazy -- "I don't want to find one." But it could also be the result of deep thought, and Binmore is definitely on that end -- his refutation of the various possible sources of nouminal, universal moral laws is complete and quite persuasive.</p>
<p>Yes, this is a funny place for a "Caltech vs. MIT" discussion to end up :-P</p>
<p>"The desire to find some universal law (as opposed to our own society's judgment) to justify our dislike for Nazism or asparagus is not a good reason to think such a law exists."</p>
<p>Sweet, let's kill people. [/sarcasm] My problem with this is that the sort of cultural relativism you're talking about is a universal law itself. You pull it out of thin air because you think it makes sense and you like it. This is no different than assuming there is "some universal law to justify our dislike of Nazism or asparagus."</p>
<p>No. The assertion that "there is no universal moral law" is not itself a universal moral law. Nobody is claiming that what cultures deem right is, therefore, abstractly right -- just that the concept of "general, abstract moral rightness" doesn't even make sense.</p>
<p>I just want to ask one simple question.</p>
<p>I've heard a thousand times that MIT and Tech students are all geniuses. So, I'm sure most of them get straight As nearly all the time.</p>
<p>But I'm just wondering whether there are some MIT or Tech students who usually got B+ in most subjects (like me :D). </p>
<p>Are those guys/girls at MIT or Tech who are in B-range (if any) in a serious disadvantage when applying for jobs?</p>
<p>Plenty of MIT/Caltech students don't get straight A's. Many, many students have a B average and still get good jobs, make six figures a few years out of school, etc.</p>
<p>I've said it before and I'll say it again: unless you're applying to med school or law school, your college GPA is not all that important.</p>
<p>I mean, honestly, there are very few MIT (and I assume Caltech) students who do get straight A's. I mean, we're smart, but that just means that it's harder to destroy the curve...? </p>
<p>I feel quite comfortable saying that the average MIT student is about a B student. That's just where most professors here center the curve.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I've heard a thousand times that MIT and Tech students are all geniuses. So, I'm sure most of them get straight As nearly all the time.</p>
<p>But I'm just wondering whether there are some MIT or Tech students who usually got B+ in most subjects (like me ). </p>
<p>Are those guys/girls at MIT or Tech who are in B-range (if any) in a serious disadvantage when applying for jobs?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Like molliebatmit alluded to, it's really all about the curve. It is PRECISELY because MIT and Caltech students are such geniuses that most of them do NOT get straight A's. After all, this is not high school straight-scale grading. Grades often times tend to be based on curves, where to get an A, you can't just know the material well, you have to know it better than the other students in the class. That's what a curve is all about - only a fixed percentage of students will get an A. If the other people in the class are geniuses, then think about how hard it is for you to get an A even if you are yourself a genius.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It is PRECISELY because MIT and Caltech students are such geniuses that most of them do NOT get straight A's.
[/quote]
I highly doubt that every MIT/Caltech student is a genius. Come on. They are all intelligent, but ... genius ?!</p>
<p>You know what I meant. I am saying that if you start with the initial presumption that they are all geniuses, then that's precisely the reason WHY they cannot all get straight A's. In other words, the logic is flawed. However, I never said that I agreed with the initial presumption.</p>
<p>I know, I know, you're right. Just wanted to make this clear :)</p>
<p>thanks for all the replies.</p>