The Sacred And The Humane

[minsocal]

Jeffrey Alexander makes a distinction between universal ideals and universalizing ideals. As an empirical statement, very few human rights are universal in the sense that they are present and defended everywhere. However, human societies tend to come up with principles that ought to be universal. This sets up all types of messiness, as different groups attempt to balance potentially incompatible ideals, and society tries to relate normative concerns about morality to other areas of life.

 

I have no problem claiming that rationality is sacred, and even mythic. In my worldview, doing that takes nothing away from rationality or intellectual discourse. I don't think the author of the linked article would agree with me. Also, I'm amused that her definition of religion makes Spong (and therefore a decent number of people here) non-religious.

 

DiSanto and Steele (1991) make a similar point. Kant's formulations have beome known as "the principle of universalizability." Kant's position is deontological, meaning "the obligatory". Disanto and Steele also point out that deontological approaches to ethics can be either "authority-based" or "reason-based". Was Kant suggesting a move away from authority-based ethics to a reason-based ethics? Possibly. In that case, we could see Kant as holding some kind of teleological ethic, that is, he had a purpose for advocating a reason-based approach over an authority-based one?

 

Nick, I agree with your last sentence. For some time now I have felt frustrated by the notion that "religion" has but one definition.

 

Myron

[GeorgeW]

Disanto and Steele also point out that deontological approaches to ethics can be either "authority-based" or "reason-based". Was Kant suggesting a move away from authority-based ethics to a reason-based ethics? Possibly.Myron

Myron,

 

Yes, I think that is it - reason based vs. authority based. And, I think that is a point the author was making with the authority being God (in the traditional sense).

 

I think I have read that Kant was also countering a utilitarian basis for morality as this could, for example, be used to justify slavery and the like.

 

George

[minsocal]

Myron,

 

Yes, I think that is it - reason based vs. authority based. And, I think that is a point the author was making with the authority being God (in the traditional sense).

 

I think I have read that Kant was also countering a utilitarian basis for morality as this could, for example, be used to justify slavery and the like.

 

George

 

George,

 

I think you are right concerning the utilitarian basis for morality. DiSanto and Steele make exactly that point saying "this is something a deontologist should be quick to point out and condemn (p. 189)." As for authority-based systems, I think Kant would not necessarily have made a distinction between God and State.

 

Myron