Kant gives people way too much credit and assumes that by enlarge we are rational beings ... he sounds good on paper but in practice Schopenhauer is my go to guy ( here and in most of his other views .)
I think you first consider your own constitution. If you know how to return the wallet and you don't, then regardless of empathy, you are harming yourself because you are not acting with integrity. Empathy is great and good but it can be corrupted. if I found the wallet of a rich guy and I was just using empathy, maybe I wouldn't have any reason to return it because it doesn't harm that person whether I do or don't and thus empathy would fail there. If I am acting with integrity, however, that never fails. So empathy is more the reward when someone is grateful for getting their property back and isn't necessary for protecting the self.
if everyone kept the wallet it would help countless people with attachment issues so would that mean it would be mortally right for everyone to keep the wallet?
Discipline is the substitute I use for empathy - which I don't have an abundance of in today's society. 'Opiate of the masses' my ass... being a Christian is hard work.
The problem is there are fundamental problems with Kant's theory of morality. Those have been pointed out by German philosophers who all had been very sympathetic to Kant. Schiller saw that Kant's emphasis on duty and rational obligation neglected the importance of emotion and inclination in moral behavior. Hegel provided a much more systematic critique that more or less culminates in the realization that Kant's categorical imperative was too formal and empty of content. And it was Schopenhauer who pointed out that Kant's ethics is basically repackaged Christianity, stripped of its theological foundations, but keeping most of its flaws.
its amazing that after so much time spent on thinking he died as an atheist! but he is not an atheist fully. He believed some fource called "will" which is actually GOD. Arthur Schopenhauer was a staunch critic of Christianity, especially its dogmas and institutional practices.
Kant gives people way too much credit and assumes that by enlarge we are rational beings ... he sounds good on paper but in practice Schopenhauer is my go to guy ( here and in most of his other views .)
I think you first consider your own constitution. If you know how to return the wallet and you don't, then regardless of empathy, you are harming yourself because you are not acting with integrity. Empathy is great and good but it can be corrupted. if I found the wallet of a rich guy and I was just using empathy, maybe I wouldn't have any reason to return it because it doesn't harm that person whether I do or don't and thus empathy would fail there. If I am acting with integrity, however, that never fails. So empathy is more the reward when someone is grateful for getting their property back and isn't necessary for protecting the self.
if everyone kept the wallet it would help countless people with attachment issues so would that mean it would be mortally right for everyone to keep the wallet?
Discipline is the substitute I use for empathy - which I don't have an abundance of in today's society. 'Opiate of the masses' my ass... being a Christian is hard work.
It's universal. God put those senses of right and wrong in us
The notion of a monotheistic God in the tradition of Abrahamic faiths is far from universal or proven.
What would be examples of universal morals that are determined by a universally given sense of right and wrong?
There are no moral phenomena, only moral interpretations of phenomena. There are no morals in nature.
i am on kant's side. its all logical matters
The problem is there are fundamental problems with Kant's theory of morality. Those have been pointed out by German philosophers who all had been very sympathetic to Kant. Schiller saw that Kant's emphasis on duty and rational obligation neglected the importance of emotion and inclination in moral behavior. Hegel provided a much more systematic critique that more or less culminates in the realization that Kant's categorical imperative was too formal and empty of content. And it was Schopenhauer who pointed out that Kant's ethics is basically repackaged Christianity, stripped of its theological foundations, but keeping most of its flaws.
Schopenhauer was an atheist 🤔
its amazing that after so much time spent on thinking he died as an atheist! but he is not an atheist fully. He believed some fource called "will" which is actually GOD. Arthur Schopenhauer was a staunch critic of Christianity, especially its dogmas and institutional practices.