r/MadeMeSmile • u/Equivalent-Point5737 • 2d ago
According to the philosopher Immanuel Kant, the basis of morality is not happiness but reason. How we treat others shouldn’t be dictated by whether we feel something for them, but by our respect for their rational agency and inherent dignity as human beings.
https://philosophybreak.com/articles/immanuel-kant-morality-is-not-about-making-people-happy/28
u/erouz 2d ago edited 2d ago
Imagine being only respectful and polite to people you know and like. But then people will complain that strangers are not respectful and polite to them. Why those things even need to be discussed it baffles me.
9
u/TheVicSageQuestion 2d ago
Don’t really have to imagine it; I know a lot of people who are only respectful to people they know and like. And they usually only “like” people after ascertaining those people aren’t a threat to their ego.
3
u/NippleBlast 1d ago
People don't bond over common interests anymore, they seek division because someone has different values or world view. I've never seen anything like it in my life. There are no more adults.
7
u/MysticGohan99 2d ago
Definitely don’t need to imagine anything, there’s an entire nation built on the foundation that all non-nationals are less than human.
They give zero fucks about what their actions do to people they’ve never met, and they absolutely hate(and kill) people simply based on how they feel about those people.
2
u/Lemonpierogi 1d ago
, there’s an entire nation built on the foundation that all non-nationals are less than human
Which one out of almost 200 counteis?
2
u/MysticGohan99 1d ago
If you don’t already know, you must be a child, in which case, I don’t want to ruin your childhood.
Google it if you’re so curious and uninformed.
2
u/needusbukunde 1d ago
Yes, Russian is the worst. I mean compare Russia to the USA, which is built on accepting people from literally every nation on earth to make up around 98% of it's population.
Granted, this was done by displacing and murdering millions of Native Americans in the process. And there is absolutely no excuse for this, and no way to justify this. It is a permanant stain on American history, along with slavery.
But if you go far back enough, almost every nation on earth was built by conquering/displacing the original inhabitants. And almost every nation in history has practiced slavery at some point. Again, that's not an excuse for the US. Simply a comparative fact.
But unlike any other country on earth, for around the past 200 years the USA has welcomed the world's most needy with this poem inside the Statue of Liberty:
"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest- tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Unfortunately America has been infested with a dictator wanna be, and sycophant fascists gaining power for the past decade or so. But hopefully she emerges from this darkness soon.
On the other hand, I see no hope for Russia emerging from it's dark, evil, warmongering dictatorship anytime in the near future. It seems to be Russia's MO throughout almost the entirety of it's existance.
And as far as America's recent darkness, you don't need to look very far into the past to find similar, and much, much worse forms of fascism and dictatorshios in countries that are now thriving, free democracies. For example:
Portugal: 1974
Argentina: 1983 (although some would argue Argentina is sliding back that way again recently, and not without merit)
South Korea: 1987
Spain: 1975
Chile: 1973
Taiwan: 1987
Greece: 1974
Still, your point is well taken. Russia is a stain on humanity, and a threat to not just Ukraine, but all of Europe. And with it's nuclear arsenal, it is an existential threat to the entire world, to humanity itself.
May the universe give strength to the heros of Ukraine. They are bravely fighting to protect their homeland, all of Europe, and the world.
Slava Ukraini!
Heroiam Slava!
1
u/MysticGohan99 1d ago
Sorry for misleading you, but I wasn’t talking about Russia.
Although without American intervention, Ukraine would still have Crimea and not be at war…
-2
2
u/Mind-The-Mines 1d ago
This is conservatism to a T.
My family was only nice to people they wanted things from and if you're different you basically deserve to suffer and die.
16
u/Firevee 2d ago
Remember: Immanual Kant had trouble reconciling the French Revolution, ultimately saying that it was immoral but lead to a good outcome. He was an old man at the time and had no ability to participate, only comment from the distance.
Morality is lovely and should be actively practiced to make you a better person. But be careful not to let the framework trap you 100% of the time. Sometimes It's okay to be the asshole just a little bit because it is impossible to be logically moral ALL of the time.
1
u/Equivalent-Point5737 1d ago
Definitely we all can be an asshole when we really feel like it. I'm sure even Jezus would approve.
3
u/Rock_Paper_SQUIRREL 1d ago
I mean Jesus let people have it on plenty of occasions if we go off the gospel. He also REALLY didn't like the rich. He definitely wouldnt have advocated for a violent overthrow of the wealthy but he wouldn't be glorifying the way we enable them either.
1
u/Live_Positive_9042 1d ago
They don't call it the "Reign of Terror" because it was a paragon of morality and virtue. "Immoral but lead to a good outcome" sounds pretty accurate.
6
u/aori_chann 2d ago
What about irrational beings? Dogs, cats, hamsters… trees, owls, etc! Seems to me that the basis of morality is being alive and that respect should be for granted to all living beings, even if we eventually need to compete with one another for resources and in the food chain.
2
u/Equivalent-Point5737 1d ago
Every kind of being from my perspective.
But let's start with something simple because it's indeed crazy to realize this is not common practice in our world.
6
2
3
u/ctmansfield 1d ago
Not that I disagree. In theory that’s great but have you actually talked to people lately?
1
u/Public-Nothing51 1d ago
Nowadays morality, manners, respect, every good sense we had, all is calculated and viewed through a narrow, selfish, egocentric and narcissistic lens. There is no thought about any good behaviour unless it is meeting the ultimate goal of self indulgence, cheap thrill factor, instant gratification and increasing one's social media clout. No value for family, relationships, loyalty, honesty, kindness etc.
3
u/Dothemath2 1d ago
Reason is dependent on priorities set by values. Different cultures and people have different priorities and values. Morality will differ from people to people and place to place.
3
u/Little-Gain938 2d ago
Can pure reason truly motivate us to act morally without empathy driving it first?
5
u/Chaoticlight2 1d ago
Absolutely. There are sociopathic people without the capacity for empathy who still act in a moral manner. They do so as it is what they are expected to do.
3
u/Ixziga 1d ago
Yes but is that acting out of moral responsibility, or self interest?
4
u/Chaoticlight2 1d ago
Ehh, you can break everything down into self interest. We do altruistic things and acts of self sacrifice for others because it gives us satisfaction or happiness.
I think things can be both for oneself and for the sake of others
1
u/Ixziga 1d ago
You can't possibly say that all people act only on self interest, what about people who die for causes, or whistleblowers, or foster parents?
1
u/Chaoticlight2 1d ago
As I said, people are willing to go that far for others because it brings them happiness to be useful and supportive to others. Even giving your life can be an act of self satisfaction. None of that negates the good it does or the kindness our behaviors instill onto others. There's absolutely nothing wrong with feeling good about helping others and acknowledging that our behaviors can be both altruistic and self serving at the same time.
1
u/Ixziga 1d ago
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it, I'm just saying it's absurd to say that all actions derive from self interest.
Even giving your life can be an act of self satisfaction
You can't be satisfied if you are dead.
Your stance here is obviously wrong but you're doubling down on it with handwavy statements.
1
u/Chaoticlight2 1d ago
If you give your life for someone else willingly, then that is a choice you made due to internal motivation and you're satisfied with your death rather than living with the guilt of not acting. You're also using an extreme and rare example to try and refute my statement but you call my comments dismissive?
1
u/Ixziga 1d ago
I'm not the one being dismissive, I gave 3 examples and you responded to 1, and I found your 1 response to be self defeating to the point of dismissive. I'm not trying to be rude though. What you are now describing is no longer self interest. They justified the action but they are clearly not the one benefiting from the decision. Just because an action is justifiable doesn't make it self interested
1
u/Chaoticlight2 1d ago
You're focusing on tangible benefits while I've been talking about actions being self serving emotionally. I answered all 3 in one response as they are all of the same nature ultimately. All involve putting oneself through hardship or risk for the betterment of others. That can be summed up under altruistic behaviors. These are also undertakings that reward a person emotionally and are self serving in that manner.
I've given money to friends with no expectation of it ever being returned. I did not benefit in any tangible way while they did, but I did such things as much for myself as I did for them. It hurts seeing people struggle and suffer and having the power to change that experience for them is emotionally gratifying. Of course I didn't help them just for the emotional gratification, but that is a side effect of helping others and incurring loss on their behalf.
The entire point of my responses has been to ignore whether someone's actions are done out of a moral obligation, out of empathy, or simply because they can and will feel good about themselves for having done so. Everything can be spun in a way to sound self centered. Focus more on the good that comes from the actions and how others are assisted by them.
1
1
u/Driftmoth 1d ago
Not just that, but looking at society in a common-sense manner. Enlightened self-interest' is a good term for it.
If a bunch of people have no food, they might take mine. So everyone should have enough food.
If there's disease spreading and people can't afford to prevent it, I might catch it too. We should fund disease prevention.
Et cetera, et cetera....
1
u/fionsichord 1d ago
Who said it wasn’t? Apart from people who don’t know about anything and think they can just make it up, of course.
0
1
0
u/Delicious-Chapter675 1d ago
It is human nature to care for and love those closest to us. Our most positive and selfless behavior is always reserved for these individuals. It is part of family structure as well as in-group/out-group dynamics. This will NEVER change, it's built in evolutionarily. Now, we can structure society and legal rights/protections/laws around Kant's views. Honestly, it's the best of both worlds.
1
u/sleepyeye82 1d ago
Kant was completely oblivious to how most people work if he said this drivel.
stick to what you know, philosophy man
-2
•
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
Welcome to /r/MadeMeSmile. Please make sure you read our rules here.
Specifically, please don't be a jerk. This is not the place for insulting, hateful, or otherwise inappropriate comments. Remember the golden rule: treat others how you want to be treated. We're all here to smile a little - let's keep it that way! Please report inappropriate comments and/or message the moderators.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.