Becoming the Right Person vs. Doing Right for Right Reasons

[Charles]

So you agree that you

I agree. We are slowly making progress.

[seer]

So you agree that you

Tass we were speaking of a deductive argument demonstrating that what on in your head corresponds to reality - I'm glad you agree. BTW - I did post Kant's deductive argument for God.

(1) Moral behavior is rational.
(2) Moral behavior is only rational if justice will be done.
(3) Justice will only be done if God exists.
Therefore:
(4) God exists.

[seer]

I agree. We are slowly making progress.

And you agree with Tass that we can't make deductive argument demonstrating that what on in your head corresponds to reality

[Tassman]

I agree. We are slowly making progress.

You're more of an optimist that I.

[Tassman]

Tass we were speaking of a deductive argument demonstrating that what on in your head corresponds to reality - I'm glad you agree. BTW - I did post Kant's deductive argument for God.

[Charles]

Tass we were speaking of a deductive argument demonstrating that what on in your head corresponds to reality - I'm glad you agree. BTW - I did post Kant's deductive argument for God.

(1) Moral behavior is rational.
(2) Moral behavior is only rational if justice will be done.
(3) Justice will only be done if God exists.
Therefore:
(4) God exists.

Is the God we are talking about in this case Allah? Or is it some other God?

What is the justice that will be done based upon? Is the justice based on God's choice or is it based on objective values? If it is only based on God's choice and not objective values then how can one even state that "Moral behaviour is rational"? I guess you don't agree with Kant, seer? You seemed to find that one could not define what is morally good without reference to God. In that case the argument would be circular. Kant founded his ideas on moral behaviour on reason. That is why he can call it rational.

[Charles]

And you agree with Tass that we can't make deductive argument demonstrating that what on in your head corresponds to reality

I hold the position that your understanding of this is slightly misunderstood and therefore any answer, whether yes or no, will lead you to wrong conclusions.

[Tassman]

Is the God we are talking about in this case Allah? Or is it some other God?

What is the justice that will be done based upon? Is the justice based on God's choice or is it based on objective values? If it is only based on God's choice and not objective values then how can one even state that "Moral behaviour is rational"? I guess you don't agree with Kant, seer? You seemed to find that one could not define what is morally good without reference to God. In that case the argument would be circular. Kant founded his ideas on moral behaviour on reason. That is why he can call it rational.

Yes. Although I think Kant was wrong...unless you are going to say that the precursors of human moral behaviour, which we find in the behaviour of our primate cousins, based on "reason" rather than on the natural instincts of group behaviour common to all social animals. In one sense this is "rational", namely it is rational to want to survive. Hence we instinctively behave in such a way as to promote survival, i.e. rationally. Morals are simply derivatives of self-preservation and procreation and are a consequence of natural selection.

[Charles]

Tass we were speaking of a deductive argument demonstrating that what on in your head corresponds to reality - I'm glad you agree. BTW - I did post Kant's deductive argument for God.

(1) Moral behavior is rational.
(2) Moral behavior is only rational if justice will be done.
(3) Justice will only be done if God exists.
Therefore:
(4) God exists.

I guess this is your own short presentation of how you interpret Kant. I don't feel too certain that premise (2) is a correct presentation of his thinking. What is your foundation?

[Tassman]

And you agree with Tass that we can't make deductive argument demonstrating that what on in your head corresponds to reality

You certainly can't. Again, a sound deductive argument depends upon the truth of the premise. If the truth of your premise (i.e. God exists) cannot be shown then neither can the truth of your conclusion (i.e. God-based reality) be established. You cannot show your premise to be true, hence you cannot show that your conclusion to be true.

[Charles]

[...]If the truth of your premise (i.e. God exists) cannot be shown then neither can the truth of your conclusion (i.e. God-based reality) be established[...].

This is the situation in which seer finds himself time and time again.

[Tassman]

This is the situation in which seer finds himself time and time again.

Sad, because it's all he's got.

[seer]

I hold the position that your understanding of this is slightly misunderstood and therefore any answer, whether yes or no, will lead you to wrong conclusions.

Yet still Charles, no deductive argument defending the position that what goes on in your head corresponds to reality. Like I said, you will have to abandon deductive reasoning and revert to question begging.

[seer]

I guess this is your own short presentation of how you interpret Kant. I don't feel too certain that premise (2) is a correct presentation of his thinking. What is your foundation?

It is not my presentation Charles, it was from the piece I linked a few pages back - which you read. And number two is correct - or how could a moral system be rational without justice?

The latter condition implies that this end must be sought solely by moral action. However, Kant held that a person cannot rationally will such an end without believing that moral actions can successfully achieve such an end, and this requires a belief that the causal structure of nature is conducive to the achievement of this end by moral means. This is equivalent to belief in God, a moral being who is ultimately responsible for the character of the natural world.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god/

Or

Humans can achieve virtue in a lifetime but it is beyond us to ensure we are rewarded with happiness
7. Therefore there must be a God who has power to ensure that virtue and happiness coincide

https://www.tutor2u.net/religious-st...moral-argument

[seer]

Is the God we are talking about in this case Allah? Or is it some other God?

What is the justice that will be done based upon? Is the justice based on God's choice or is it based on objective values? If it is only based on God's choice and not objective values then how can one even state that "Moral behaviour is rational"? I guess you don't agree with Kant, seer? You seemed to find that one could not define what is morally good without reference to God. In that case the argument would be circular. Kant founded his ideas on moral behaviour on reason. That is why he can call it rational.

Yet Kant concluded that if virtue was not rewarded that morality would be irrational.