Re: Rational base for morals

Dan Fabulich (
Mon, 11 Jan 1999 12:45:17 -0500

KPJ wrote:
>It appears as if Samael <> wrote:
>|Can you tell me how I can, in good faith, follow a moral code when I believe
>|there is no logical reason to do so?
>|Especially when nobody has yet even managed to come up with a logical
>|objection to rape (which pretty much everyone on the planet admits is an
>|abbhorence (sic)).
>I suggest that the meme rules of conduct be commutative.
>Commutativity: If the rule is "X shall not perform act P on Y"
> then also the rule "Y shall not perform act P on X" shall hold.

You have more or less enunciated Kantianism. Kantianism has various problems, however. Take killing, for example. We normally regard killing in self-defense as OK. Must I simply relent if someone tries to kill me? Similarly, attacking another person is usually considered wrong. Must I turn over my wallet to an armed thug so as to avoid a fight?

IMO, the only act type that makes sense is consequentialist in nature; thus there are only two act types: maximizing the good, and not maximizing the good. (Note that I haven't yet enunciated what the good is; I'm just trying to give an example of a coherent "commutative" or Kantian structure.)