Morals and Truth: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Ethics » Morals and Truth » Morals and Truth

Morals and Truth
Do morals and truth share the common ground?

Morals and Truth

cosscos
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 11, 2008

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 172

Posted 07/05/09 - 05:43 AM: Subject: Morals and Truth	#1
Morals is concerned with what is right. However, truth is concerned with what is true. Morals is different in category from truth. The qualification, sine qua non for truth is justification. However, sine qua non for morals is validation. Because morals is concerned about existing facts, but truth is concerned about ought. As for category imperative, my understanding for Kant is that morals should be truth. Therefore, it comes to that morals also should be justified rationally as same as truth do and the right turns out the true. I presume I am not in the right position for Kant, right?

Crackers
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 28, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 678

Posted 07/05/09 - 05:56 AM:	#2
cosscos wrote: Morals is concerned with what is right. However, truth is concerned with what is true. Morals is different in category from truth. The qualification, sine qua non for truth is justification. However, sine qua non for morals is validation. Because morals is concerned about existing facts, but truth is concerned about ought. As for category imperative, my understanding for Kant is that morals should be truth. Therefore, it comes to that morals also should be justified rationally as same as truth do and the right turns out the true. I presume I am not in the right position for Kant, right? Change: "Because morals is concerned about existing facts, but truth is concerned about ought." Into: "Because truth is concerned about existing facts, but morality is concerned about ought." Then everything you wrote is correct. You aren't in the right position for Kant but if you did, like Kant, want to prove that morals equal truth then you will have to seek the justification you rightly spoke of, which will always take the form of some sort of delusion: God, for example. The fact of the matter is: morals do not equal truth. It is all interpretation that is subject to the individual. What I say is good differs from what you say is good. There is no way to justify which of our good is the true good. There is no true good, in the realm of truth my good and your your good are equal. Edited by Crackers on 07/05/09 - 08:37 AM

cosscos
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 11, 2008

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 172

Posted 07/05/09 - 09:28 PM:	#3
You timely mentioned about good, Crackers. What is good or bad is belong to the category of happiness. Happiness is concerned with what is good, as you pointed it out. If your good differs from my good, then your bad is probably my good. As far as l believe, the criterion of good is not the private good for each person but the common good for all while we are being in the world. That sounds pretty ideal, but it is impossible for humanity and history to progress better stage apart from idealism. I don't agree with you that there is no true good, because it comes to moral anarchy or moral chaotic. What is morally right should be good concerning with happiness for all sake, including you and me. I do agree with you that my good and your good are equal in truth. I wish good is common essence for everyone in the world. I believe we are all equalized by realizing good, which is justification. At this stage, What is truth means morals become accord with happiness. In other words, doing right thing is to doing good thing by assistance of true, or real.

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.