Minimal Level
The point of a minimal moral level is so one does not incessantly strive for an idealized maximum, but the practical application allowing for the best results in action of daily life. From that minimal level one should be able to distinguish readily the correct course of action needed in different situations, allowing for subjective reasoning based upon an objective ideal.
When there is a connection of the subjective and objective, there can be reason and rationality. Either one on their own develops its own set of problems. Reasoning all the time will disallow any action, and rationalizing all the time would allow for grotesque action. Therefore, it becomes a symbiotic union, a shared reaction that produces the desired results of morality and efficiency.
The minimal level of morality is the Golden Rule, which is best said in its negative form.
“Do not do to others, that which you would not have done to yourself.”
It is reasonable, because it matches an objective ideal of freedom, because it is equitable and just to at in accordance what the self wants. It is rational, because it would not take long to understand what one’s own reaction in a situation of the same circumstances would be. Therefore, it has form and amorphous attributes, being neither an absolute nor a relative, but ambiguous.
With this form of thinking, rather than the exaggerated over-idealized beliefs of perfection, one can create a solid character. One without deficiencies in the moral or ethical realm, and also without deficiencies in the realm of action. It is the cooperation of the duality that leads to the best results, not the separation of.
Although I agree that many philosophers have tried to over-idealize morality in mankind, I also feel that the “Golden Rule” may have its shortcomings.
The Golden Rule assumes that the person who is charged with applying this rule will be compassionate and on the same level of morality as most others.
Personally, I prefer Kant’s Categorical Imperative, which leaves much less room for relativity.
“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”
Sounds like by ‘minimal level’ you’re referring to Locke’s state of nature.
I understand the categorical imperative, and see it as a definitively worthy goal of trying to fuse both the subjective and objective together, however I find that to be far to complex for the general public.
This is why I chose the negative of the golden rule, an attempt to point out the narcissistic tendencies innate to humanity. For even cooperation is built upon survival of the individual.
Simplicity of morality becomes the cause, and in the end it is a societal problem, built on societal assumptions and can not be fully changed by individual moral rules. Which actually makes the post a dead end.
Tannie, what is Locke’s State of Nature?
Gracias,
Andy
Well before government, before consent, you have the state of nature. Inalienable rights and libertarianism at its purest and what not.
But I do agree with the first poster about Kant. For me it really comes down to his Shopkeeper argument.
Section 8c, Good will: http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/k/kantmeta.htm