Sagging Thoughts.

[Pig]

Knowing that Kantian "sense of duty" is discredited on the bases of everyone's sense of duty being different, do you think Cultural Relativism is the best solution for moral standards?

[Matkey]

Originally posted by ®¤ì©:

Knowing that Kantinisen sense of duty is discredited on account of everyone's sense of duty being different, do you think Cultural Relativism is the best solution for moral standards?

What do you mean Kantinisen? Do you mean E. Kant’s universal morality? If that is what you meant Kantinisen, then the two conflicting theories are: relativism and absolutism. Before we proceed some sort of discussion or debate over the subject matter, could you please be more specific becasue i don't understand what you mean Kantinisen.

[Sophist]

Very Interesting! I shall await to see how the ball is passed.

[Thinkerman]

do you think Cultural Relativism is the best solution for moral standards?

No. For something as conflict resoultion within a decison making process yes, sure. But no for morals Because we would be shifting our moral standards every so often.

[Pig]

Originally posted by Matkey:

What do you mean Kantinisen?

Matkey, spelling offcourse. I was referring to the Kantian Moral Theory.

 

For more clarification on my above question:

Kant writes:

The first proposition of morality is that to have moral worth an action must be done from duty.

 

But sir, everyone's sense of duty is different.

 

I am totally flabergasted by your statement on Immanuel Kant having two conflicting moral theories :confused: . Is that a conjecture on your part to assert both theories were supported by Kant?

 

 

Quote of the day: If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. --Abraham Lincoln

[Thinkerman]

Quote of the day: If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. --Abraham Lincoln

True yet it was unearthed this year that Lincon himself was one of the biggest Slve owners of the time :confused:

[boycott]

I guess kantian would rather say when individual is born he has no cultural norms, if you play him a mozart he might find it beautiful no matter what race he belongs..and if he doesn't fall naturally we can still work out? No but thanks! from which standard norms are we

gonna relativise here? the danger is that kind of relativism can lead you into ethnocentrism what is right is not necerely right from one culture group to another, and so the moral beliefs and sense of duties are different. Its like saying someone who kills or rapes is not doing anything wrong cos after all its his culture or he's thinking doing the right thing.. like saying more websites are to be done in africa where in western society another well is to be sink, for what relativism is worth in matter of duty

[Matkey]

Originally posted by ®¤ì©:

 

I am totally flabergasted by your statement on Immanuel Kant having two conflicting moral theories :confused: . Is that a conjecture on your part to assert both theories were supported by Kant?

what i meant to say was there are two oppopsing theories (universalims and relativism). Kant was the pioneer of the universalim. I am sorry for the confussion.

 

Kant’s moral theory states that all moral requirement are instances of one general moral requirement, which he calls “Categorical Imperative” An imperative, to paraphrase, is command or requirement such as you must do it, as you stated. But, why should there be one moral standard? He argues that morality is based on rational or reasoning nature of human beings. For this reason, he believes that there can be one moral standard for the world; because morality is not contingent upon human desire, sentiment and emotions. But can mere reasoning and human rationality substantiate moral standard? I concur more or less with Kant rather than with Hume, who argues that morality comes from human desire. However, human reasoning varies from place to place, from group to group, from individual to individual and so on. I believe Allah”s Book of revelation is the true source of morality which establish standard universla morality.

 

However, from secular perspective, relativism is better solution because it takes an objective approach to every situation. Proponent of this school of thought considers morality to be relative to different societies. In other words, there is no one morality that is intrinsically right. As Muslim, I differ this view as well, because it is contrary to what Allah said in His Book (Qur’an). For instance, some of the cultural practice may seem normal behavior to someone whose morality comes from secularism or any other culture, whereas one whose morality is based on Islam finds this kind of behaviour inconceivable or immoral.

 

My argument is that universalism is best solution if it is based on Islam. I can understand why someone would prefer relativism over universalism. Western world use this principle (universalism) in order to promote and perpetuate their culture. In fact United Nation made unversalism one of its central theme in order to safeguard the so-called human rights. I don’t wish here to discuss politics, therefore I would rather leave it there.

 

that is my 2 cents input.

[wind talker]

interesting topic indeed,

 

however, i wouldn't completely agree with brother khayr. like others have stated above, i believe that it all depends on the individual. weakness of iman has been the key contributor to the downfall of the average somali pysch, reinforced of course by western cultural ideals and values.

 

matkey, impressively articulate argument..

 

nabadey,

[Suad]

Salaam Everyone

I donot write much in this forums but I do tend to read most of the arguments in here by far this is the most interesting one. And I have to say Brother Markey breaty much nailed the nail on the head.

 

Salaam

[Zaylici]

Although the idea that morality or human mode of conduct could be based on purely on rational basis is an interesting one, but it lacks grounds. That is to say, majority of human individuls do not develop their rational capacities to fully guide the course of their life, the reason for this among other things is their nature and the invironment in which they find themslves( this idea was held by 17th century Ethiopian religious thinker, Named Zara Yacob). Man and women by nature abhore and show no inclination towards hard work, since hard labour is the only avenue for the development of human rationality, man fails to fully excercise his rational foculties becasue of his tendency not to work hard. Morever, invironment( including culture, history and religion) may not aid her tendencies to fully actualise her potentialities and thus develop rational personality. For this reasons many human personalities fail more often than not to fully establish themselves as functioning rational entities.

Morality based on reasoning has no grounds, bacuase it fails to cupture the sad realities of human conditions. I therefore, reject the Kantian view of rational morality. However, I am Muslim but ralativist and secular in thinking, I am not bounded in my thinking realm. I veiw religion as legimate base of politcal community, but the socioeconomic and political distiny of the state shoulld be solely guided by an intellegent minority.Or put it differetntly, the course of the politcal community should be guided by free thinkers who are not bounded by nothing other than interest and prevailing circumstances.I therefore, agree with Kant that morality should be guided by rationality (that is the use of reason and logical principles),but with some significant modifications, that is Morality( including sacred morality) should be guided by rationality only in the circles of of fully cultivated personalities whom I call the elite of the state or intelegent minority, However, general puclic or the pastoral or peasent masses and unsophisticated urban folks, should be guided by rituals and general axioms, not by reason, and this is the realities that they are in now at this moment. In other words, irritionality albiet with some moderation is the cherecteristic of their true human conditions, although this seems to be a harsh cherecterisation, it is not entirely an exaggiration but profound depiction of true realities that can be observed upon close examination! The intellegent minority should design these rituals to enable them( masses) to live fully flourishing politcal life, however, Aristotelian this may sound, I am inclined to think that way, and hisory veiwed as source of the human past seems to substantiate the aforementioned veiw.

[Grad Student]

zaylici,

the idea of "king-philosopher" is simply an elitist and should be rejected as it is fundamentally abject to the potentiality of man; in other words, we all have the same empty chip imbedded in us when we are born.

[Sophist]

Zaylici! i laughed so hard reading your last post!i it reminded my state after just completing my class on Morality!. Brother, such an outragous remark dances on the fence of Islam! perhaps you don't think about the consequence!. I advice you to retreat or otherwise the sword of Mujahid will touch your flesh.

[SomeAlien]

Originally posted by Socrates:

zaylici,

the idea of "king-philosopher" is simply an elitist and should be rejected as it is fundamentally abject to the potentiality of man; in other words, we all have the same empty chip imbedded in us when we are born.

tabulas rasas.

[Zaylici]

Sophisits I expect you to be rational in your thinking and analysis, the reason among other things is that you are studnet of Philosphy.After long years of meditaions and pondering on the subject of religion and state, I have conluded that there is distintion between religion( which is divine in the case of Islam) and the believer, the latter is human whereas the former is divine . With this in mid, we should remember that man is immersed in socioeconomic and political conditions, these conditons would determine the kind of the system that would best maximise the chnaces of living good life. I am not prejudiced to Islam, because I am Muslim too, however, long analysis on the Muslim history convinces me that theocratic state where ethnic dynasties replace one another is phinominon that cannot be escaped so long as one imagines an Islamic state led by Khalifa or AMir Al-mu'muniin, Consequently I beleive in the case of Somalia, where the majority are Muslims, ISlam should be the state religion, that is to say laws of the land should not unreasonably contradict the the teachings of the ISlam, nevethless the men of God will be part of pluralistic state, but they should not be the ruling elite, on the basis that they know Islamic laws, the reason among other things is that the state would have many laws that are man made, for instance how the regional adminstration would work with the federal government or how the minstries and partliment would work. The latter body of laws require diverse people with different skill, for that reason I veiw Islam as part of the state but the not the state per se. The Quran clearly asserts that man is the master of this universe, that is to say he runs his bussines as he sees fit. It is in this line of thinking that I beleive that rationality should be the supreme, in other words, human mind that had been fully developed and cultivated should intertpret the scriptures as they see is in the best interest of the state and soceity.

I hope this helps,

Fanatism and intimadation through the use of force is to be sure an appealing phinominon, but history shows that they( those who intimidate other trough the use of lethel force, and are inclined to view scriptures on literal interpretations not rational interpations) rarely lead people to good and fully flourishing life.

there are people who are waiting the internet, since I use the home with, so I will finish later