7 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Jan 9 '16 at 15:57 comment added user18800 Perhaps this is where the disconnect is. The definition of "secular" matters greatly here. The OP asked for secularist principles on which to base a moral system. One can strongly argue that secularism, by definition, does away with any obligations one person might have to another -- especially moral obligations.
Jan 9 '16 at 7:09 comment added Philip Klöcking Why should I accept Christian morality instead of Hinduistic? With this argument, subjectivity has nothing to do with secularity. That's why I think your point is totally meaningless.
Jan 9 '16 at 0:01 comment added user18800 Understood why you mentioned him. However, nothing in Kant precludes someone from rejecting the categorical imperative. Why should anyone adopt Kant's view instead of someone else's?
Jan 8 '16 at 21:10 comment added Philip Klöcking He is the most famous example of a philosopher with an objective moral principle not based on religion, i.e. who can be read secularistic. What is there not to be understood?
Jan 8 '16 at 18:05 comment added user18800 The original question didn't even mention Kant.
Jan 8 '16 at 13:27 comment added Philip Klöcking This is wrong in so many ways. For example, the deduction of the Categorical Imperative by Kant in GMM itself works without any terms of or connection to religion. It in fact has to, because the objective reality of the ideas of God (kantian sense) and eternal souls are based on it and Garve made him see his petitio pricipii in CPR. And this is only the most famous example. Kant had to overcome the dogmatic stance Aquinas had regarding rationality.
Jan 8 '16 at 4:21 history answered user18800 CC BY-SA 3.0