Question 6 for Christians

[9sublime]

"13. Kant shows the basic identity of the first and second formulation of the categorical imperative. Those actions that, on the first formulation, cannot be universalized without contradiction (for example, committing suicide or refusing to help the needy) will be seen on the second formulation to be inconsistent with the idea of humanity as an end in itself."

Great Traditions in Ethics (ninth edition)
Denise, Peterfreund, White

Killing yourself is against Kantian ethics?

Why - its not your moral duty to stay alive is it?

 

[numinus]

Killing yourself is against Kantian ethics?

Why - its not your moral duty to stay alive is it?

Can killing one's self be considered a universal law? I don't think so.

 

[9sublime]

It doesn't have to be a law, not every action requires a law. Does breathing require permission in accordance to Kantian ethics?

Is it whether or not there is a universal law to NOT kill yourself surely?

 

[numinus]

It doesn't have to be a law, not every action requires a law. Does breathing require permission in accordance to Kantian ethics?

Is it whether or not there is a universal law to NOT kill yourself surely?

The categorical imperative applies to rational beings simply because rational beings are capable of discerning the ends of their own existence, either by virtue of their own wills or by virtue of the nature of such an existence. And you first need to be alive for that, no?

More often than not, people commit suicide because of some circumstance. In that regard, the act of suicide becomes merely a hypothetical end (a means to another end). A categorical imperative is an end in itself. It is not dependent on the circumstance for which an action is taken nor on another end (hence making it merely a means to a further end) to render it valid.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Its the most logical ethical theory, don't you think?

It is simple, straightforward, and it speaks from human experience. Furthermore, it is the best counter-point to all the humean clutter being proposed in this forum.

What in the Hell is "humean clutter"?

 

[numinus]

What in the Hell is "humean clutter"?

David Hume (1711-1776) author of an enquiry concerning the principles of morals (1751).

You know? The source of all that moral relativity you endlessly argue for with such tenacity and against all logic.

 

[Dr.Who]

What is the nature of heaven? Does anyone ever have fun? Go out for a pizza? Have sex? Or do they just float around in a gauzy sense of happiness? Life there is supposed to be forever. But what happens forever? Suppose after, say, a trillion years, someone says it's been fun, but I want out. Is he allowed to end his life?

Our souls will exist forever. One cannot end the existence of ones soul. That is true whether or not we exist in a relationship with God. Those souls/spirits who live with God are in heaven and those who are not with God are in hell. Neither heaven nor hell are physical places they are just ways to describe the condition of one's relationship with God after the body is gone.

The joy of being with God overhwhelms all other pleasures so much that no one will care about the whisp of smoke that was life here.

 

[Dr.Who]

What I find more interesting is that even a really good Christian is going to have negative aspects in their personality, and some people who scrape it into heaven will probably have a tendency to be complete bastards.

What happens to their personality so everyone lives in harmony? Sounds like we are going to loose our free will once we get up there.

I suppose a Christians answer would be we just don't know... have faith. As in, follow our word blindly and irrationally as the obvious truth. No thanks.

The flesh is corruptible. That statement is in the Bible many times. Our souls in heaven are not corruptible since there is no flesh.

And yes there is more to this that I don't know the answers to.

 

[9sublime]

And yes there is more to this that I don't know the answers to.

Yet you still choose to believe in something of such magnitude without many of the answers avaliable to you. How utterly irrational.

 

[Dr.Who]

Yet you still choose to believe in something of such magnitude without many of the answers avaliable to you. How utterly irrational.

There is no branch of thought that has all the answers available. If you think that Chemistry or physics or whatever is working with all the data then you are mistaken. If they started with the assumption that they could observe everything they needed to (empiricism) then anything that did not fit that assumption could be thrown out. That would be circular logic. But they don't start with that assumption. They claim that they will only observe what is observable and the rest is outside of what they can address. In other words, they start with the admission that huge amounts of what could be considered cannot even be considered scientifically.

There is not yet a objective proof for or against the existence of God. (though there is subjective proof for all who have met Him.) The only ones who are not working on faith are the agnostics who admit that they don't know.

Are you an atheists or secular humanists? For what reason do you deny the existence of God if not your faith that He does not exist?

As for myself I do have my faith but I also have had an experience in which God revealed Himself to me. God is both logical and fits with my personal experience. If He were shown to not be logical then I would have to conclude that I have had an hallucinatory experience as well. But I am fortunate that He is both logical and there is no reason to think that I hallucinate either.