Nathaniel: I think you have misinterprested my comments regarding Kant. In terms of what he says, you are absolutely correct and I am in total agreement. My point merely was to suggest, perhaps not so clearly, that Kant leaves no solid basis for developing categorical imperatives. As such, pilosophy was caught in a trap that, by others, caused the development of utilitarianism as the extrinsic measure. The problem that I see is that all morality is reduced to the subjective without the extrinsic (better yet, Trancendent). Philosophers can create all of the constructs in their infinite variations that they have. However, without an extrinsic basis for morality, the human mind will always turn to what is in that particular individual’s best interest.

I cannot take any one seriously who argues that it is not morally permitted to lie to a murderer at one’s door in order to save a person’s life who is hiding inside one’s house. By what basis can one suggest that do not lie as an imperative overrides that conflicting imperative of do not kill (or in this case, abett in the killing). It would not be in keeping with the Stoic dictum to which you refer – “Let justice be done, though the heavens fall.” The cited situation would be the epitome of injustice.

P.S. I’m enjoying reading some of your other posts regarding Kant. You seem to have a good understanding

This is a misinterpretation of Kant’s ethical philosophy. It is not consequences that govern which maxims can be legitimately adopted – if that was all there is to it, then you are right, it would reduce to utilitarianism. This is how Mill interprets Kant.

Only maxims that can be universally willed without contradiction are ethically permissible. So the problem is not that a universalized maxim does not produce the right consequences, but rather, that a universalized maxim either literally destroys itself or works against normal human ends. In both cases what is problematic is that a maxim or law cannot be rationally adopted universally. If we only use reason to figure out how to get the sorts of things that we want, we are only acting on hypothetical imperatives(“If you want Y, then do X”), and Kant makes it clear that morality is about the Categorical imperatives (“Do X!” – always, everyone, everywhere).

Kant is categorically against suicide. The person who commits suicide treats themselves as a means to the end of lessening suffering and it is inconsistent with respect for humanity as an end to treat oneself as a means in this way. This also leads Kant to say that sex outside of marriage is also immoral. Even in extreme situations, Kant sticks to his ethic, which is why he famously argues that one is not morally permitted to lie to a murderer at one’s door in order to save a person’s life who is hiding inside one’s house. This is in keeping with the Stoic dictum – “Let justice be done, though the heavens fall.”

Finally, Kant himself argues that the existence of God is a practical postulate or rational faith. It is something that must be believed (although not known, he is also quite clear about this) in order for morality to make sense. Since the moral life so often requires us to act in ways that run counter to our own happiness, we must believe that God exists as the being who will ensure that someday happiness and moral goodness coincide, or in other words, so that happiness will be distributed according to virtue. God is not at all necessary in determining the content of morality – human reason does this by issuing commands, namely Kant’s Categorical Imperative, but Kant does insist on belief in God as a psychological necessity. How can we really be moral if we are convinced that our own moral lives will be marked by nothing but misery. The belief in God’s existence inspires us to be moral during those times when it is the most difficult.

Extract God from your thinking, and the Logos — the comprehensive logic that interpenetrates all of the creation — disappears from view. It’s really a descent back into superstition; an incredulity about the elemental forces with no comprehension that they can be comprehended. For the atheist however, the incredulity is willful while for the ignorant it is merely naive.

This is precisely the question that Kant addresses in the Critique of Practical Reason. Ironically, Kant found the solution in the Christian doctrine (without the Transcendent, of course) in a restatement of the Golden Rule (Do unto others…etc).

As you are well aware, he postulated that man, if he views himself in the position of the “universal legislator”, which legislation will apply to him as well (a variant: the king promulgates the law but is bound by his promulgation), will postulate a law and act in accordance with it, if it in his best interest. Therefore, Since I do not want to be killed, I postulate the law “thou shall not kill”. It is seductively attractive. However, it breaks down in the abnormal situations: e.g. my pain is so great from the cancer that I want you to kill me. Therefore, killing becomes moral in some situations.

Kant, I daresay, then evolves into hedonisim (perhaps, a law allowing abortion) or utilitarianism (a law allowing not only abortion but confiscation of property). The only difference between Bentham and Mill, on the one hand, and Marx and Lenin, on the other hand, is whether the “universal legislator” be the individual (which may lead to anarchy) or the state (which definitely leads to totaliarianism).

Morality, to avoid being relative, can only exist within the context of the extrinsic. Man’s choice is God or the State. However, since the State is governed by men, it is really not extrinsic.

All that is left when men leave off God is a will to power. It’s a historical inevitability. Western culture cannot move in any other direction except of course back to God.