4 ms·
This seems broadly to pass the Kant test on morality, so it could be said to be well-grounded. Something is immoral if it is contradictory when generalised --
by hxa7241 14y ago
This seems broadly to pass the Kant test on morality, so it could be said to be well-grounded.
Something is immoral if it is contradictory when generalised -- that was the gist of Kant's view. And real manipulation and persuasion seem to fail: if everyone is allowed to manipulate everyone else, everyone loses their own control of themselves -- in which case, how can they manipulate someone else? There is a contradiction.
The two basic checks the article proposes -- "Will I use the product myself?" and, "Will the product help users materially improve their lives?" -- are sort-of rough ways of testing for such Kantian contradction.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/#ForUniLawNat http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/#ForUniLawNat
- true_religion 14y ago> And real manipulation and persuasion seem to fail: if everyone is allowed to manipulate everyone else, everyone loses their own control of themselves -- in which case, how can they manipulate someone else? There is a contradiction. Consider the case of two people A and B in a zero-sum game, who are trying to manipulate one another. Both parties know the score---that each is attempting to control the others actions. When A or B acts, either one party has succeeded at manipulating the other or both parties have failed. There can be no situation where A manipulates B (thus A wins), and B manipulates A (thus B wins simultaneously).
- gnaritas 14y agoManipulation isn't a zero sum game, you can both win. Spouces manipulate each other concurrently all the time.