Also, don't be so quick to dismiss our conscience: it's the distillation of millions of years of evolution.
You quote Kant's categorical imperative but then fail to distinguish between 'is' and 'ought' (a difference Kant made clear). Even if you're right that evolution fashioned our "conscience"--if there is even such a thing--a certain way, it doesn't mean we SHOULD act accordingly. If evolution fashioned us in such a way as to still feel the drive to be swinging from the trees, hurling our feces at each other, does it follow that it's what we should be doing?
The parent post was right-on in warning about the conceptual link between a "conscience" and some form of relativism.
Slashdot Mirror
The categorical imperative is useful, especially in this instance.
Also, don't be so quick to dismiss our conscience: it's the distillation of millions of years of evolution.
You quote Kant's categorical imperative but then fail to distinguish between 'is' and 'ought' (a difference Kant made clear). Even if you're right that evolution fashioned our "conscience"--if there is even such a thing--a certain way, it doesn't mean we SHOULD act accordingly. If evolution fashioned us in such a way as to still feel the drive to be swinging from the trees, hurling our feces at each other, does it follow that it's what we should be doing?
The parent post was right-on in warning about the conceptual link between a "conscience" and some form of relativism.