The evidence is from morality.
You wrote in the first book that Kant needs God to determine the measure of good and evil but not to see to it that good actually exists.
After reading the entire chapter, I didn’t understand where this index is located. Do you mean to look into the conscience? You completely ruled that out.
And what would happen if, through certain propaganda, the whole world supported murder? Would the measure of good and evil change?
I’m really looking forward to your reply, thanks for everything.
That’s not what I wrote there. In fact, I wrote the opposite. I wrote that the definition of good and evil is objective and empirical (in the eyes of the moral mind, the conscience). The force that obliges us to act this way requires God. See also column 457. While it is true that in practice people can act morally even if they do not believe in God (contrary to the widespread preaching of religious ‘moralists’, who rely on the verse “There is only no God in this place and He will kill me”), there are two explanations for this: 1. They simply want to do it (they feel good about being moral). This is not moral behavior. 2. They are confused, meaning they hold a contradictory position. This means that either they are not moral or they are secret believers (see column 456).
If there is propaganda that confuses people and makes them think that murder is good, it is just like propaganda that makes them think that 2+3 = 14.2. What is the question?
Everything is correct and understandable, I asked about your very claim that good and evil is empirical. Maybe we are under propaganda that murder is bad. What is the proof that murder is empirically bad?
Who told you that what you see actually exists? Maybe it's propaganda? Who told you that the principle of causality is not a product of propaganda? These are skeptical questions that are pointless to engage with.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
