Morality and Moral of State

12 Jun

Like all idealist constructs, the principles of law, which I prefer to call state morality, are conceived by Kant both as subordinate to the moral imperative and as derived from it, though it is not so clear in its texts.
Making moral laws, or what we can call the minimum moral: respect and dignity of the person, right to opinion and other basic rights (health, food and housing), make them legal laws have an obvious difficulty if the desire is to become the legal laws a kind of particular law of moral laws, mainly from of the categorical imperative that is to become a model for the others, which individual would be this model is a problem.
The two fundamental points of Kant’s categorical imperative were the assertion that legal laws (laws of law) are moral laws, that they are not only subordinate to moral laws, but constitute a subclass of laws moral, and in the second there is a “moral concept” of that of a moral authority or faculty (Befugnis, moral faculties) to do all that is morally possible and to resist by force whoever tries to prevent someone from doing it.
The two points of questions that arise from this are how to admit that the categorical imperative as the principle of the laws of law that require only “legality”, that is, the conformity of external actions to universal laws?
The second is that it makes sense to admit the categorical imperative as the principle of laws that require only “legality,” that is, the conformity of external actions to universal laws?
The idea that the categorical imperative belongs, however, not only to conformity with universal laws, but also to unconditional, out of respect for these laws, leads to think of the legal laws as particular of moral laws, but as if they exclude an essential note to the concept of the latter (ie, unconditional conformity to laws)?
The principle of free will, which is fundamental in Christian freedom, is not the same as that of state liberalism, of the categorical imperative founded ultimately on individual liberty and not on the social limits of individual liberty.
This philosophy of idealistic morality, which is deontological, complements the teleological principle of “religion within the limits of simple reason”, builds a theological trap in which many have fallen, an idealistic religion is no different from atheism.


Comentários estão fechados.