Aiwendil, I think you’ve run up against the same barrier that Kant hit. If morality exists outside of human invention, then its source is unknowable, and therefore unprovable. Logic and science have no answers to the question, “Why?”
You’re coming from a viewpoint that will only accept purely rational justifications for morality and motives. I’m coming from the viewpoint that logic and science are useful tools and good as far as they go, but they are only tools that describe a fraction of reality, not reality itself, and are not the only routes to useful truth.
You may deride or dismiss motives or truths which do not proceed from anything other than pure logic, but I suggest to you that logic alone is not enough. Einstein once said, “Humanity has every reason to place the proclaimers of high moral standards and values above the discoverers of objective truth. What humanity owes to personalities like Buddha, Moses, and Jesus ranks for me higher than all the achievements of the enquiring and constructive mind.”
Have you ever read Michael Crichton’s non-fiction book, “Travels”? I recommend that you check out the book’s very last section, titled “Postscript: Skeptics at Cal Tech”, which contains a speech that Crichton delivered to a group of scientists. In it, Crichton does a good job (I think) of suggesting that science and rationality, while valuable, are not the be all and end all of human inquiry. It’s somewhat off-point of our discussion here, but is interesting reading nonetheless.
The reason I question you on the rationality of an immoral vs. a moral lifestyle is to see where you’re at, exactly, to find out whether you believe in the rationality of a generally immoral lifestyle and, if so, if you’re living according to that logic. Obviously, this is a somewhat rhetorical line of questioning, as you seem to feel at least some measure of distress or disappointment over where your conclusions are leading you. Would you say that you try to live a more or less moral lifestyle? Why or why not?
With regards to Kant, there is a distinction which appears to be missing here somewhere and which keeps leading to miscommunication, a fault which no doubt lies with yours truly. I am
not arguing that moral actions are measured by the feelings of pleasure or pain that performing them evokes in the moment, nor am I arguing that Kant (or Plato) suggests anything of the kind. Moral actions frequently are difficult, even painful to perform because they involve some personal sacrifice. I’m speaking more of a deep inner happiness, an abiding fulfillment and deep contentment. Here I suppose we may approach some definition of happiness as being in accord with universal truth. Kant speaks of pure moral actions as ones that “elevate the soul”.
The point of all this Kant business is that I think Kant argues for moral imperatives as natural laws, performed not for the sake of some nebulous idea of what might produce personal happiness, but out of duty – “...principles dictated by reason, which must have their source wholly a priori and thence their commanding authority, expecting everything from the supremacy of the law and the due respect for it, nothing from inclination, or else condemning the man to self-contempt and inward abhorrence.” My understanding of that is that refutation of those natural moral laws – or even observance of them for the wrong reasons – results in “self-contempt and inward abhorrence” – unhappiness. In this sense, I think Kant agrees with Plato insofar as he postulates that a moral life is superior to an immoral one for the very reason that immorality results ultimately in “a fundamental unhappiness”. While I may have specific interpretations of Kant wrong, I don’t think I’m far off in that regard. BTW, “Groundwork...” is available online (and is the source of the above quotations) at
Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals.
Diamond, thanks for the clarification. I’m curious, though – I decided to check the line in the movie, but couldn’t find the one you mention. Gandalf tells Frodo, “You must trust yourself. Trust your own strengths.” – a line which Tolkien may indeed have objected to.
[ October 27, 2003: Message edited by: Mister Underhill ]