Metaphysical challenge to the test of legal rational person

Metaphysical challenge to the test of legal rational person

So far, this is a procedure to reject the obvious wrong belief in the general order of things. Basically, the conclusions that have been verified and verified in what we call “science” have replaced the old delusion. At each stage, rationalists are attacked like scientific reformers. The first is the alias of anger, the second is the bad argument about “evidence”, the second is a calm attempt to prove that his method will lead to moral damage, whether it will be punished by the super legal omniscient authority on the earth now or in the future. In particular, he was convinced that, according to his own principles, people’s evil tendencies could not be curbed; Even the most thoughtful people will face the danger of endless wrong behaviors when they replace the “absolute order” embodied in the religious code or the current moral system with their own personal judgments. The key answer to this argument is undoubtedly that the application of reason to moral issues carries the risk of error. This kind of mistake perplexes the so-called scientific reasoning. On the other hand, one of these risks is at least as important as receiving “authoritative” education. Even the “authoritative” religious believers with the highest discipline there cannot see the consistency of their moral views. Even in the Catholic Church, it is difficult to find two people who have judicial habits and agree on what is “correct”.

The test position of a rational person is not more vulnerable to criticism than utilitarian criticism (even though he advocates opposing his utilitarianism because of his religious opponents, it can be observed that this is just narrow utilitarianism)

When he was doubted of the “voice of conscience”, Kant’s argument for this concept was a juxtaposition of conversion terms. It’s right to hesitate about the feeling of obedience

“That’s right.” I thought, first of all, I want to “legally forgive lawbreakers, and should” hand them over to “justice”; or, I want to get up early. Then, I can enjoy more sleep. I said in the calculation: “Absolute command” “Simplify the Bible to the last item. Metaphysical people have done the same thing, and they are confused about the need to balance objectivity in the legal sense. On the one hand, the subjective records of metaphysics in history and biography are full of declarations of vicious conflicts of belief. This conflict is also full of various moral conflicts of rational people.” This is based on spiritual isolation among biased jurists. On the other hand, the fair suffering of the church, in the possible objective arbitrariness, wholeheartedly knows what is the correct answer to the legal situation. The life of Oliver Cromwell, the great parliamentary reformer, illustrates two dilemmas, and the moral evils generated from them are enough to prevent the propaganda of faith. Moreover, philosophers of “absolute command”, like soldiers with divine will, miscarry in a guiding way. Kant, on the one hand, refused to lie to potential murderers, which led him astray; on the other hand, he praised the “enlightened” ecclesiastical people for systematically promoting their metaphysical beliefs in a dual sense. Because; People want to be “cheated”; A notorious Latin aphorism. His “absolute command” is a kind of self deception.

Thirdly, when the spiritual facts are critically faced, and the “absolute order” is rationally considered as the sum of continuous moral judgments, or just the oral expression of what we think should be done, the rationalists are still not in a utilitarian or other disadvantageous position. Not there, but his rope was taut. Church morality is finally recognized by more thoughtful people among religious people, but it is only the recognition of “natural” morality. Different from metaphysics or repeated dogmas, whether primitive or otherwise, there are no social commandments that do not appear in the prescription of a natural sense of morality. This is super evidence that religious prescriptions come from the same source. In fact, all church ethics survived today are recognized in this way, because it conforms to natural judgment. Without resorting to the court,

The order of the church could not distinguish between the man’s punishment in the Bible and the widow’s law that he had abolished.

Therefore, the posteriori argument about religious consistency is meaningless. The course of the debate shows that the moral advocates of religious utilitarianism are traitors to this cause

In fact, this left him with religious fears and sanctions, which were beneficial to believers with extramarital affairs, so he could not be disappointed. The simple dogma of God, this position

Bortel’s full support. But Voltaire refused to use the threat of faith, which is as popular as many religionists today; If we want to deal with this threat rationally, we must first

The problem that cannot be improved according to the declared purpose is raised. If this task is left to those who influence them, rationalists can claim that it is reasonable to act according to the following maxims:

Honesty is the best policy in intellectual and business life. Historically, the moral progress of the terrorist religion did not make him a moral defender for all. So far, he is regarded as the guardian of the pure honesty of those people

In the name of morality, he doesn’t mind at all. In fact, he still has to face a challenge. That is, what are your own bad tendencies in your way of thinking? If a person who does not believe in religion sees his way to gain benefits through fraud or legal deception, what can he prevent? Many well meaning people seem to get a lot of satisfaction from the proposition of this dilemma. If rationalists should not spontaneously oppose lies and deception through training and prejudice, or generally do not want to do what they can, or be sensitive and afraid of the accusations of colleagues, they may not be satisfied with this answer, or they may not be satisfied. Then his truthfulness or honesty is really inferior to his.

The typical objective challenge paranoia can only add a little. Considering that he unreasonably publicized the events that started with unpopular views, generally speaking, he cannot lie to gain benefits, because he frankly said that fear of the results is a very important consideration in his life plan. At the same time, they were promised to forgive all crimes under simple conditions of ultimate repentance in their own code.

In a broad sense, reason means habitually resorting to reason, reflection and judgment. In fact, a rational person will say: “I feel incredible. I should not believe any fame brought by its assertion. I will describe things that I think are suspicious or incredible in this way.”