4 ms·

> The categorical imperative roughly says that something is moral only if its universal adoption would benefit society. Really? I actually don’t think that’s r

> The categorical imperative roughly says that something is moral only if its universal adoption would benefit society. Really? I actually don’t think that’s right at all. For example: nobody should be a philosopher, because if I everyone were, society would collapse. Surely, Kant did not believe that. My understanding is that the categorical imperative is more like: it’s only moral if you would accept a random roll of the dice into any of society’s roles. In this case, I’m not sure society would be better off if passive income did not exist, but perhaps it should be “earned” passive income, in the entrepreneurial sense, rather than just pure rents for high status people.

pge 2y ago
Your definition is much closer to Rawls’s vision of a just society and the “veil of ignorance.” While heavily influenced by Kant, Rawls comes much later. Kant’s Categorical Imperative was an attempt to define moral laws (without resorting to a deity). The article has it right, though I might change the wording slightly to say that a “rule” or “law” that I use to guide my behavior is only moral if its universal adoption would make the world better. Choosing to be a philosopher is not a rule. Something like, “I should never lie” is a rule which one could evaluate with Kant’s approach, by asking whether if everyone followed that rule, society be better off or not.
- immibis 2y ago
  A rule can also be: "people who enjoy philosophy and are good at philosophy should become philosophers"
thrance 2y ago
Kant's moral system is by no means perfect. His own definition is: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." Obviously we'd all starve to death if everyone became full time philosophers, but wouldn't the world be a better place if everyone took some time to ponder the big questions?

pge 2y ago

Your definition is much closer to Rawls’s vision of a just society and the “veil of ignorance.” While heavily influenced by Kant, Rawls comes much later. Kant’s Categorical Imperative was an attempt to define moral laws (without resorting to a deity). The article has it right, though I might change the wording slightly to say that a “rule” or “law” that I use to guide my behavior is only moral if its universal adoption would make the world better. Choosing to be a philosopher is not a rule. Something like, “I should never lie” is a rule which one could evaluate with Kant’s approach, by asking whether if everyone followed that rule, society be better off or not.

immibis 2y ago
A rule can also be: "people who enjoy philosophy and are good at philosophy should become philosophers"

thrance 2y ago

Kant's moral system is by no means perfect. His own definition is: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." Obviously we'd all starve to death if everyone became full time philosophers, but wouldn't the world be a better place if everyone took some time to ponder the big questions?