Am I correct in thinking that this is essentially Kant’s argument for the categorical imperative?
Science is the empirical measurement, and then attempts at explanation, of natural phenomena. It is by no means foolproof, based as it is on human observation, but it is quantifiable, it has definable variables and it has sound methodological basis. That we observe a ball travelling in a certain way, at a certain speed and acted on by certain physical forces cannot be objectively proven (it could all be a result of imagination) but as we accept a priori that the world outside us does exist, proper empirical science gives us an at least justifiable subjective framework on which to observe and attempt to quantify and explain physical/natural phenomena. Morality has no variables and no empirically measurable attributes, so even by this assessment it is not as reliable as science because there is no way to empirically and justifiably support belief in it’s conclusions.
As for accepting my POV on the nature of the mind as relates to the world, the work of Descartes is pretty well established within philosophy.
You’ve asked the million dollar question, because at it’s logical conclusion, Kant’s categorical imperative is quite patently absurd.
Sort of. Though I will make a shameful admission: I have attempted to read Kant’s works (albeit in translation), and I find them, well, hard slogging. Hence my actual knowledge of Kant is mostly from extracts and secondary sources.
My preference for discussing the matter in terms of the Golden Rule. In spite of Kant’s own protests to the contrary, the two are clearly variants on a theme.
So you are a follower of Descartes, are you? Interesting.
The outcome of Kant’s categorical imperative is that an action which is immoral is always immoral, and should never be done and can never be justified. If lying is wrong, and a murderer turns up at your house with a chainsaw and asks where your children are, it is indefensibly immoral to lie to him, or indeed to physically attack him.
Well, if that is what Kant believed, he’s wrong.
I’m not Kant.
Not a follower, I find his assertion ‘cogito ergo sum’ to be inherently correct and it’s a cornerstone of philosophical thinking. Descartes was also a Catholic and I find religious belief absurd, yet it does indeed posit your favourite - objective morality.
That was a base and futile attempt at trying to uncover some inherent dissonance in my thinking, and quite evidently clutching at straws. I also quite like Nietzschean philosophy, but similarly I don’t agree with his sexual habits and the fact that he caught syphilis from a Brothel. I am not religious, and these people are not infallible. Some examples of their thinking may be stark and brilliant, it does not mean that all of them are. To be a follower of anything or anyone is deplorable.
Eh? Not at all. I’m just poking fun at you for name-dropping to prop up your position. I don’t seriously believe you actually follow Descartes. 
My position was on the degree of certainty we can have about external phenomena. Rene Descartes’ cogito ergo sum (or to give it the original french ‘je pense donc je suis’) is the classic and most famous and possibly the original assertion of my point, hence my ‘name-dropping’ was entirely relevant, vis-à-vis this was not simply the random opinion of an internet commentator, but rather a position expounded by one of the fathers of western philosophy, and indeed a position for which there is no reasonable doubt or contradiction.
You are unfamiliar with how an appeal to authority is supposed to work in argument.
A hint: it isn’t very effective to appeal to an authority where you have just finished saying you regard that very authorities’ major conclusions on the actual point under discussion (that is, whether morality is objective) as “absurd”.
Take this argument for an example: you evidently think that “cogito ergo sum” leads to the inevitable conclusion that only one’s own existence is objective. The guy who actually came up with the philosophical point believed the opposite. In what way does it help your position to appeal to him as an authority? If he were here, he’d clearly say you got it wrong.
I hold his conclusion ‘cogito ergo sum’ to be correct’, that he supposedly held ’ the highest and most perfect of sciences’ I find incorrect, but you are incorrect in assuming he would necessarily have disagreed with me as opposed to you. Read a bit more up on him, and you will see that his perception of morality was not objective, as yours is, as it was taking it out of God’s hands and making the subjective human the authority on what morality was. That is neither here nor there however, this debate is between us and Descartes is dead. That I have won seems evident, though I’m sure you feel the same in your own favour. Let us allow third parties to make of this what they wish, or indeed to extend the debate in whatever direction it goes.
Edit:
No, this was certainly what he meant, 'tis you who is wrong, both in the objectivity of morality and in whatever you seem to have decided ‘cogito ergo sum’ means.
Wow - that’s some bullet proof reasoning you’ve got there Malthus. :rolleyes:
It’s a perfectly adequate response to the “argument”.
Well, my understanding of Descartes is that he understood from his maxim that one’s senses were unreliable and only deduction could be relied on.
From that, he concluded that metaphysics was the appropriate foundation of the sciences and that the highest expression of the sciences was morality.
He expressly disapproved of those (like you!) who expressed radical scepticism about the objective reality of the outside world. For example:
From Descartes:
So you see, my disputatious friend, it is you who are wrong. Provably wrong. Insofar, I suppose, that you grant that writings by Descartes have any objective validity. 
I see, perhaps there is some dissonance between my philosophy and his in so far as the conclusions he drew. ‘Cogito ergo sum’, I would still argue stands as self evident, though the conclusions he draws from this and those I draw from this would appear to be markedly different. Though, as I mentioned before, I consider no human infallible, and also consider his conclusions drawn from the primary assertions of the objective self to be nonetheless inherently subjective, being that they are perceptual in nature.
It’s a shame he is dead, and not here for me to argue with. In his absence I think I quite soundly put down your formulation of objective morality at any rate, that being what the past page and a half has been about.
I am rather amused that you take such apparent glee, smiley faces and all, in finding that someone else disagreed with me, despite your own patent inability to find any flaws in my argument. Wrong in my assumption of his conclusion, as it pertains to his fallible work, but not wrong in terms of my own logical construction, which has yet to be adequately disputed. It seems as soon as you actually grasped what was meant by objective and subjective, your argument died down completely and turned to what is essentially, ‘I subjectively disagree’, as opposed to ‘you are wrong’.
Go through with a fine-toothed comb, you may perchance find some straws to clutch at, though I doubt they’ll be found within my logical formulation.
You are evidently not understanding what’s just gone on. Malthus did not “take glee” in “finding someone who disagreed with you”. He pointed out that one philosopher who you were using the buttress your case disagreed with you. The difference between the two should be readily apparent.
Further, he’s found quite a few flaws in your argument. Instead of patting yourself on the back, you might want to address them.
Thanks for your interest, but no, he didn’t find any flaws in my argument. I did make a mistake in so far as the moral argument Decartes himself built upon the principle ‘cogito ergo sum’ as I’ve stated, which was indeed my mistake, however the assertion I’ve made based upon that primary principle is nonetheless airtight to my knowledge. If you’d care to elaborate on the flaws then do so, else you’ve added nothing to the debate. Taking glee was in reference to the smiley, do not feign naivete.
Edit: As I said at the time ‘It seems as soon as you actually grasped what was meant by objective and subjective, your argument died down completely and turned to what is essentially, ‘I subjectively disagree’, as opposed to ‘you are wrong’.’
My point has been adequately defended, unless there are new grounds upon which to suggest my logic is flawed, I propose that it still stands.
I am confused. Specifically, if morality is a consequence of our (human, sentient) existence, then do you agree or not that in the absence of humans, morality would not exist? If you agree that morality exits only as an epiphenomenon of humans and humanity, I would ask how something which has no independent existence outside of our minds can be said to be part of (or possess) objective reality.
If you disagree, however, and believe morality can arise from/by means other than as a consequence of human consciousness, please describe such means (preferably without recourse to a god or god-like entity); and please describe, as well, the grounds for believing that morality arising in such ways is objectively real.
Thanks!
You did not say “taking glee in the use of a smiley”. Claiming that yet another one of your errors is somehow me pretending to be “naive” is… unsavory. How you think you can twist the record of your own words is beyond me, especially since I just quoted what you said. But here goes, again:
That is, you claimed he was taking glee “in finding that someone else disagreed”. Of course, the “someone” just happened to be the philosopher you were attempting to use to buttress your claims. Now your pretense that you were really talking about a smiley is obvious in its fictionalization.
And yes, you have spent time in this absurd style of argumentation and ridiculous amounts of self-congratulatory auto-back-slapping, but you had and apparently still have not valid response to the fact that consciousness itself breaks down as an ‘objective’ phenomena under your own rules. An objection which, in fact, you not only dodged, but did so while not understanding Malthus’ point. That’s simply one example, it’s not terribly profitable for me to come up with more at the moment.
Faux politeness coupled with a vacuous style of argument does not support your position. Better to drop the frills and actually try to deal with the flaws in your argument rather than trying to handwave them away from a position of ersatz superiority.