Metaphysics: Morality (reject, Earth, recall, sinned, Christianity)

[TheHumanGod]

Try your best to understand but keep in mind that this is metaphysics, the "greater" science. Its goal is simply to understand the basis of truth of all things pertaining to the mind. This includes but is not necessarily limited to morality, existence, and free will/determinism. I will only be talking about morality itself for now.

Our existence on this earth has conditions; parameters that control both our mind and body. For example Gravity(i hope no one here denies that) is a parameter that influences our body. Even if we deny the existence of Gravity it will still influence us whether or not we want it to or not. This same principle applies to religion; simply that there are certain parameters that define the conditions of our minds existence(metaphysics). One can accept or reject a parameter in this case, however, in either case we will always be subjugated to that parameter in question(similar to gravity).

Christian Morality sets universal laws that define a good and bad. Immanuel Kant through his Categorical Imperative attempts to prove this morality through metaphysics. In essence his concept creates boundary's where if a person can will an action to become a universal law than it is morally good. For example you cannot will the action of murder to become a universal law for it contradicts you as a living entity whereas you think it is good; and since you cannot will that to become a universal law than ideally the action of murder would be innately bad/evil. The problem here is that Kant is assuming people are either absolutely good or absolutely bad and thus defines morality in an ideal setting whereas life on this earth is never absolutely good/bad. For example almost everyone has "sinned" in one way or another at least once. So Kant's Categorical Imperative is flawed in the sense of understanding Morality in context of living on this earth.

Good and Bad are concepts simply perceived by an individual. Regardless of what others say people may have different perceived definitions of what morality is to them. So on this premises the universal morality must be in the context of the Individuals perception. Here morality can be defined as "to be authentic to oneself; to act on the premises of what one truly believes to be wrong or right". This disproves Christian morality in the sense that there is no absolute understanding of a universal right or wrong action. For example of understanding... Do you think it would be good or bad to tell a lie in order to save an innocent child's life? According to Christianity and Kant's Categorical Imperative the right answer would be to that it is bad whereas under the authentic universal morality the right answer would be that it is good(this is assuming that the individual in question has a conscience).

"to be authentic to oneself; to act on the premises of what one truly believes to be wrong or right" is not necessarily the sole basis of understanding for morality. But it can actually be expanded to say "to be authentic to oneself with the greatest possible logical understanding within the alloted amount time and avoiding extreme actions(like murder) if there is a hint of logical flaw". This expansion to the original statement is to prevent a person from acting and convincing themselves of something to be good when in fact there is a possibility that later in life when their logical understanding improves of the past action they regret what they have done (making it a bad action in essence).

This is the parameter of morality in the sense that it is the only Universal law for morality that is possible in this world. This effectively eliminates Christian morality or any other religious form of morality contradictory to this parameter in this world. (granted though that if everyone was moral according to this moral parameter than the Christian morality would in theory be right)... to deny this is equivalent to denying gravity... for the basic methodology of the two concepts are the same and they both define parameters of our existence in this world... I can deny gravity in this world yet it will still influence me; just like i can deny this morality yet my moral worth will still be controlled/influenced by this parameter.

[TheHumanGod]

Do not all rush up to respond...

[stephenw]

I agree with you and I consider myself a Christian.

[Wandered Off]

Originally Posted by TheHumanGod

The problem here is that Kant is assuming people are either absolutely good or absolutely bad and thus defines morality in an ideal setting whereas life on this earth is never absolutely good/bad.

My recollection of Kant is rusty at best, but I don't recall such an assumption in his maxims. My understanding was a bit simpler (and possibly flawed): To evaluate whether an action is moral, predict the outcome if everyone else did it also. If the outcome is harmful, the act is not moral. Of course, we then get into the gray area of what is harmful, but even that doesn't carry the assumption you mentioned, unless my memory fails me yet again.

[TheHumanGod]

Originally Posted by stephenw

I agree with you and I consider myself a Christian.

I think that is very possible if we talk metaphysics only on this specific topic... For the Christian morality, Kant's categorical imperative, and communist morality is the Ideal to strive for.

A little off topic... but as a Christian do you believe in free will and that God is all powerful, all knowing, and all loving?

Originally Posted by Wandered Off

My recollection of Kant is rusty at best, but I don't recall such an assumption in his maxims. My understanding was a bit simpler (and possibly flawed): To evaluate whether an action is moral, predict the outcome if everyone else did it also. If the outcome is harmful, the act is not moral. Of course, we then get into the gray area of what is harmful, but even that doesn't carry the assumption you mentioned, unless my memory fails me yet again.

I like how you explain his theory and for most purposes i think you can define it that way. When you say "predict the outcome if everyone else did it also. If the outcome is harmful, the act is not moral" that defines everyone as doing the same moral action(hence absolutely good/bad) whereas on this earth there is no moral condition where everyone acts the same.

[stephenw]

Originally Posted by TheHumanGod

A little off topic... but as a Christian do you believe in free will and that God is all powerful, all knowing, and all loving?

If we have free will it exists in the pre-conscious mind. I think. Perhaps the only freedom we have is in how we feel about things. This is a question I am grappling with and haven't resolved.
I do believe God is all powerful, knowing and loving.

[Dunemeister]

Originally Posted by TheHumanGod

I like how you explain his theory and for most purposes i think you can define it that way. When you say "predict the outcome if everyone else did it also. If the outcome is harmful, the act is not moral" that defines everyone as doing the same moral action(hence absolutely good/bad) whereas on this earth there is no moral condition where everyone acts the same.

Well, that's the whole point. Kant was speaking about habits such as stealing. Imagin a world in which everyone stole all the time. Would the end result be harmful or beneficial? Obviously, it'd be harmful. So, stealing is wrong.

Of course, this is where the counterexamples come in about the poor starving child who has no other recourse. Is his act wrong? Kant's answer is: yes it is. But it's excusable. That's where, for Kant, the so-called grey areas you refer to come in. The moral status of the action is what it is -- right or wrong. The question in any particular circumstance is to what degree, if any, the action is nevertheless excusable. (BTW, I don't think Kant used the word "excusable", and I couldn't really understand him. I understood his interpreters better, but then that's not really the same as understanding Kant, is it? Ah, well....)

[TheHumanGod]

Originally Posted by stephenw

If we have free will it exists in the pre-conscious mind. I think. Perhaps the only freedom we have is in how we feel about things. This is a question I am grappling with and haven't resolved.
I do believe God is all powerful, knowing and loving.

I guess what i am getting at is that all Christians I have talked to on this subject have said something along the lines of "God has given us free will to choose the right thing, like for example accepting Jesus as your savior" -- do you agree with this?

Also do you think an individual will be punished(hell, or punished in any way shape or form) for not accepting Christianity(God, Jesus, etc)?

sorry for so many questions but i am getting somewhere.

[Rolling_Stone]

Interesting OP. But even if everything it says is true, the power of an idea lies not in its reality or reasonableness, not in its certainty or truth, but rather in the vividness of its human appeal and the universality of its ready and simple application.

You might as well be talking about the flavor of oatmeal.

[stephenw]

Originally Posted by TheHumanGod

I guess what i am getting at is that all Christians I have talked to on this subject have said something along the lines of "God has given us free will to choose the right thing, like for example accepting Jesus as your savior" -- do you agree with this?.

I believe that how we behave is important not what we believe. To quote from Pelagius "You will realize that doctrines are inventions of the human mind, as it tries to penetrate the mystery of God. You will realize that Scripture itself is the work of human minds, recording the example and teaching of Jesus. Thus it is not what you believe that matters; it is how you respond with your heart and your actions. It is not believing in Christ that matters; it is becoming like him."

Originally Posted by TheHumanGod

Also do you think an individual will be punished(hell, or punished in any way shape or form) for not accepting Christianity(God, Jesus, etc)?

I believe in universal salvation.