Q&A: The Argument from Morality and Cognition
The Argument from Morality and Cognition
Question
1. Morality is embedded in us as a psychological tendency; the reason we accept it philosophically is that it is good.
Here the question is: “What determines what is good?” Very simply, once Kant defined morality so beautifully as “what you would want everyone to do,” that defines what is good. Everyone knows that it is good to educate this way, good to behave this way, and good to be this kind of person even when nobody sees, because it gives satisfaction.
2. Cognition is the only tool we have for knowing the world. We have no other tools, so we accept it without a philosophical explanation.
Answer
There is a question here. I didn’t understand it.
Discussion on Answer
What didn’t you understand? Please make the effort to write something specific. You can’t expect me to repeat here half the book.
1. In the book, the Rabbi writes that morality can be a psychological tendency; the force of the revealing argument exists when a person believes that there is morality, and not that it is only a psychological tendency.
My claim was that he can believe there is morality because it is good, as Kant defined it—what he would want everyone to do.
The Rabbi asks about this in the book that there needs to be some external source to define what is good, because without that there is no reason for the good to be good.
My question is that there is a reason: whatever causes evil. Just as a suicidal tendency is a bad tendency, so too a tendency toward things that, if everyone did them, would be a bad tendency.
2. In the argument from cognition, the Rabbi asks: if it is a psychological tendency to believe the senses, why are we not logically doubtful about them?
My answer is simple: because there is no other option.
Thank you very much.
1. Why is the good binding? “Good” is just a definition. Kant defined what the good is, but did not explain why one should act that way. My claim is that without an external source, no binding command has any validity. Defining something as good does not give it validity. So if I behave badly, on what basis do you condemn me? Just because that’s how you feel? Why should that matter to me?
2. I also don’t have the option of flying, so does that make walking into flying? If there is no option, then no. People trust their senses not because they have no choice, but because they trust them.
I explained all this there quite well.
1. Thanks. Right, I missed that.
2. It’s a psychological tendency; the reason I don’t change that perception is that it is useful to me [and there is nothing else that would be useful to me].
That is why I prefaced that this argument, like the argument from morality, is directed only at someone who trusts his senses, and not at someone who relates to them as a necessary evil (and in my opinion that is almost everyone).
I didn’t understand the arguments from morality and cognition [epistemology] for the existence of God in The First Existent.