Kant: There is no such thing as coincidental righteousness

That was very generous of him.

I’m interested to know what Kant would say about the moral argument for God.

Glenn, would love to hear your feedback on a quick and dirty argument I just came up with relating to moral freedom in heaven. I’m sure there are some flaws with my argument, but sometimes another pair of eyes finds them more quickly. 🙂

http://theisticnotebook.wordpress.com/2011/07/16/a-quick-and-dirty-parity-argument-against-moral-freedom-in-hell/

if your motivation is your reputation, you fail kants test?

so, would you still do something you thought was good if you knew that your friends and social circles would never be able to find out? would you still sponsor a child in africa if you couldn’t put a photo on your fridge for your visitors to see, or even tell anyone that you were doing it, and if not you fail kants test? this is why charities give you stickers or badges to wear when you give them a donation, firstly so you can show others what a good person you are, and secondly so that others see you wearing it with pride and want the same recognition.

kind of related: study on recent freakenomics podcast by some economists about ‘conspicuous conservation’ (kind of like conspicuous consumption where you only by a porche for its status symbol). in areas where environmental concern was fashionable, people buying environmentally friendly vehicles preferred toyota prius over other hybrids because it looks so unique and is instantly recognisable; they purchased them because they wanted recognition from their peers. (south park does a piss-take calling them ‘pious’ instead of prius)

i think lots of ‘good’ things we do are just us projecting a desired image of ourselves to our social groups. good old evolutionary instinct being misconstrued as morality. poster-boy dawkins in tgd talks about some birds which share their food with others as a means of demonstrating their superiority, to the point where if a lowly ranked bird tries to share food with a higher ranked bird, they are attacked and punished. our group instinct (think chimpanzee troops) even influences our behaviour when there are only PICTURES of eyes watching us (http://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/melissa.bateson/Bateson_etal_2006.pdf), hence the use of eyes in religions (think big watchful calf-eyes of jesus gazing down on you from the walls, you not wanting a picture of your mother looking at you from the bedside dresser when you’re doing something you know she wouldn’t approve of, and possibly the use of faces on currency).

if kant is looking at motivation like this, i think people often kid themselves about how moral they actually are.

Of course Jesus condemned men who did “acts of righteousness” from a deceitful heart

Kant seems to be making the case for a Christian understanding of morality without mentioning Christ. Not konwing anything about Kant, does that make him a Christian Inclusivist (“no one does good, no not one”), or something else (non-Christian moralist?)?

@ Roy, i would be in two minds about that comment. Sam g asked the right question and it can be applied here as well. Would you still do something good even if it didnt contribute to your happiness? I suggest that if the answer is “no” then you would also fail Kant’s test. Jesus never promised happines, infact promised lots of unhappiness. Blessed are you when men persecute you for my names sake.

Maybe this time you reflected more on the needs of/ impact on others and less on simply indulging personal desire? Motive counts.

next question: conscious or subconscious?

a lot of people may not actually aware of the real reasons they do something: as in the example of the eyes above the honesty box or the greenies buying toyota prius’ (priai?), statistical analysis points clearly to a motivation that most individuals would deny if you were ever to suggest it to them.

maslow listed needs that motivate us, and “On the whole, however, in the average person, they are more often unconscious rather than conscious.” (http://emotionalliteracyeducation.com/abraham-maslow-theory-human-motivation.shtml)

and i don’t really know much about this, but freud thought we were motivated largely by our subconscience, right? is that still accepted?

so is it possible to do something for self-esteem or respect of others without actually consciously knowing that that is why we are doing it, and possibly convincing ourselves of some other motivation all together? if so kants test will be almost impossible to apply to all but the most clear cut cases. there are even overlapping motivations with varying degrees of influence, is it all far to complex for kant to be of any widespread use?

“(I think you can be a physicalist and still view the soul as having “parts”, just like a nation is one entity with many parts)”

Of course. In fact, only the physicalist can think of the soul as having parts in the sense of components. Dualists think of the soul as simple and therefore indivisible. But that’s a whole other issue.

Sam, I’m not sure that perpetual guilt would follow even if we were to grant the existence of a subconscious. I’m not terribly familiar with Freud, but I also don’t think that he thought the subconscious was completely inaccessible (I’m pretty sure the point of psychoanalysis is to uncover those hidden motivations). It’s not as if you would be forced to remain at its whims or that it could not be “purified” somehow. Still, what you suggest sounds a little bit like the affects of sin. It would be trivially true, and scriptural as well I believe, to say that we sin in ways that we are not aware of. While it certainly is a hard thing to pass Kant’s test, that would hardly go against its truth.

matt you’re quite right, i wasn’t questioning the truth of kants test, just it’s usefulness.

gaebler, christianity needs guilt BECAUSE of it’s emphasis on forgiveness: without guilt, what is there to forgive? it only has meaningful definition in the presence of guilt. without guilt, jesus would have had no reason to die.

this is why i said ‘yay’ sarcastically. perpetual guilt is a good thing for christianity because it means people keep feeling like they need forgiveness. an analogy would be a pharmaceutical company patenting a cure for a contagious disease of their own making, or an electronics company designing appliances to break down and need replacing every few years. any 101 marketing course will tell you that you need a problem before you can sell a solution.

matt i understand it is a bit of a jump from the existence of a subconscious motivations to perpetual guilt, hence the word ‘potential’ in there. i guess my main reasoning would be that there is always room for doubt about quite how good you actually are. for example “i helped someone else and now i feel good about myself. was i altruistic or did i act selfishly because i wanted to feel good about myself?”

Sam, 23 “without guilt, Jesus would have had no reason to die.”
That relies on a particular theory of what the atonement was about though.

With respect to conscious or subconscious morality. I think the issue is rather moot. Conscious decision making can inform sub-conscious “programming”. Force of habit and discipline shapes or neural pathways. So, I can modify the “moral” structure of my subconsciousness, by making conscious decisions now to build behavioral norms (i.e. strong, habitual neural pathways) in my brain.

In some respects you might conclude that I’m not responsible for what I do now (it’s hard wired in my brain), but I can be held to account now, for what I might do in 5 years time – ergo the “me” of five years ago is partly responsible for what I do now. That’s of we’re in the business of proportioning causal blame. I prefer to think of justice as being about repairing people so they become “better”.

Sam, g, firstly I don’t really know what I’m talking about, not in the way a behavioral psychologist, or neuro-psychologist might. I’m not, and make no claim to be, an expert in this area. I would hope that the data I’ve managed to garner from reading in this area, and my interpretations of the writings of those who might be “experts” is reasonably accurate..

Interesting question about some of the fundamental/basic needs (ala Maslow). There certainly are examples of humans who, by “choice” (however one wants to define choice) are able to deny themselves at least the achievement of some desires which others might assume to be fundamental human needs (Buddhist monks temporarily using mind discipline, in order to stimulate circulatory systems which can overcome the effects of extreme cold) . But whether or not we can turn ALL physicological or non-physicological needs on and off by force of habit.. I would have my doubts. I suppose it depends on how complex and elastic the circuitry is that results in said needs. The physiological needs such as the need for air, for example, is reinforced by some VERY strong neural systems and coupled to large muscular reflexes. I think overcoming this would be not only impossible mentally, but obviously fatal. :{

There is plenty of neurological evidence to suggest that many of our behaviors are informed by a cocktail of environmental influence and the hard wiring of our brains (genetics included). And there is a difference between behavior, need and perceived need, especially when we are discussion non-physiological things.Let’s take mirror neurons as an example. These circuits basically encourage us very strongly to mimic the perceived wants of other people. So, by isolating ourselves from certain persons, and “hanging around” with other persons, we can make some changes to the way these neurons influence our own desires.

This is where, perhaps, I might be able to make room for Kants “sense of duty”. If I decide, out of “the good for society” to pursue my life without excessive alcohol consumption, I might then put in place various disciplines, habits which will result in the “future me” being able to maintain the behaviors associated with the “sense of duty” I feel now.
However, I’m not sure Kant is off the hook. After all, the future me will act out of habit – so, is the future me coincidentally moral? What if the “now me” has good intentions, but is unable as yet to produce the behaviors associated with the “sense of duty”.

pls excuse the mix of american and UK spelling.. browser…

As far as 1 goes, so what? I’m confused as to whether or not you think this is a problem for Christianity and why.

As for 2, I see no problem with social pressure serving some epistemic purpose in moral decision making. If your social appearance was your only reason for “being good” then it seems to go without saying that would be disingenuous. More to the point, do you really think that considering the public and subjective benefit of righteous behavior before engaging in it would mean that those things then were your motivation? I am struggling to understand why your 2 points work as objections at all, but maybe you just mean to ask questions about practically applying Kants test? If so, I’m sorry for taking so defensive a posture. On a practical level, Kants test does seem to demonstrate how thorough our need for forgiveness and reconciliation to God and one another is.

If you do mean to object, though, I honestly don’t understand what you are objecting to. It sounds like you are saying something like, “because everest is so tall and so few people have been able to climb it, it shouldn’t count in conversations about mountain climbing.”

Well phil, even setting aside the issue of divine commands (which Kant, of course, believed in), Kant would reject the idea that you should do something because it has some instrumental benefit – like bettering society. In that case you’re doing something as a means. Kant’s demand was a very strong one: You do something because you recognise it as a moral obligation – it is part of the moral law.

But to be honest, it’s very hard to separate Kant’s moral theory from God, so I think whatever parallels we try to come up with will likely fall short of what Kant intended if we swap his worldview for another.

Well, to be fair, there’s been a huge amount of literature written on this issue, stemming mostly from Nagel’s and Williams’ articles on the topic of moral luck. I take it you disagree with them both?