I doubt you have spoken to many untheists if you don’t expect them to have categorical imperatives.
An example would be nifty.
I tend to read “categorical imperative” in the strongest, Kantian sense, an imperative statement that is a priori valid irrespective of context or reasoning—i.e. murder isn’t wrong because people don’t like it, or because it reduces happiness, or because it makes baby Jesus cry; murder is just wrong and you just shouldn’t do it period. Perhaps I should not have raised that distinction without defining what I meant more rigorously. Unless there’s some counterexample I’m overlooking, of course.
I tend to read “categorical imperative” in the strongest, Kantian sense, an imperative statement that is a priori valid irrespective of context or reasoning—i.e. murder is just wrong and you just shouldn’t do it period.
If “murder”==”the wrong kind of killing” then “the wrong kind of killing is just wrong and you just shouldn’t do it period” is a tautology. It would seem you can get cheap categorical imperatives by jumping to tautologies, but they’re mostly useless since you still have to establish whether it’s murder in the first place (presumably by resorting to context and/or reasoning).
I suspect non-tautological categorical ethical imperatives are rare, and furthermore hotly disputed among ethicists. For example some groups hold that “killing is categorically wrong,” but that view is under heavy debate.
Edit: I retract my statement about non-tautological categorical ethical imperatives being rare, at least in per capita terms. Anecdotally, premarital sex and disobeying your parents would seem to be examples of things that are widely held to be categorically wrong, but certainly not universally agreed-upon.
Plenty of people hold essentially categorical imperatives to be true. I sincerely doubt any of these people are untheists. The essence of a categorical imperative is that it is completely divorced from evidence; categorical imperatives are by nature a priori. I believe they have no place in a rational mind, though I would love to see contrary evidence if it exists.
I doubt you have spoken to many untheists if you don’t expect them to have categorical imperatives.
An example would be nifty.
I tend to read “categorical imperative” in the strongest, Kantian sense, an imperative statement that is a priori valid irrespective of context or reasoning—i.e. murder isn’t wrong because people don’t like it, or because it reduces happiness, or because it makes baby Jesus cry; murder is just wrong and you just shouldn’t do it period. Perhaps I should not have raised that distinction without defining what I meant more rigorously. Unless there’s some counterexample I’m overlooking, of course.
If “murder”==”the wrong kind of killing” then “the wrong kind of killing is just wrong and you just shouldn’t do it period” is a tautology. It would seem you can get cheap categorical imperatives by jumping to tautologies, but they’re mostly useless since you still have to establish whether it’s murder in the first place (presumably by resorting to context and/or reasoning).
I suspect non-tautological categorical ethical imperatives are rare, and furthermore hotly disputed among ethicists. For example some groups hold that “killing is categorically wrong,” but that view is under heavy debate.
Edit: I retract my statement about non-tautological categorical ethical imperatives being rare, at least in per capita terms. Anecdotally, premarital sex and disobeying your parents would seem to be examples of things that are widely held to be categorically wrong, but certainly not universally agreed-upon.
Plenty of people hold essentially categorical imperatives to be true. I sincerely doubt any of these people are untheists. The essence of a categorical imperative is that it is completely divorced from evidence; categorical imperatives are by nature a priori. I believe they have no place in a rational mind, though I would love to see contrary evidence if it exists.