4 ms·
It's been twenty years since I read Kant, but it differs from utilitarianism in that it has no concern for utility of others, rather it's "if I could pick rules
by aidenn0 2mo ago
It's been twenty years since I read Kant, but it differs from utilitarianism in that it has no concern for utility of others, rather it's "if I could pick rules for everybody to follow, those are the rules I should follow. Ergo if I never want anybody to lie to me, then it is always immoral for me to lie -- anything else would be a contradiction, since it assumes two rational agents coming to different conclusions.
- hliyan 2mo agoA good point, but (a) this merely sounds like a modification of the golden rule: do unto all others, without exception, as you would have done unto you, and (b) the rule isn't an end in itself because the end lies behind the "should" (e.g. why should someone not lie to me).
- aidenn0 2mo agoI am by no means an apologist for Kant, but his ethics are clearly deontological, not consequentialist. He categorically rejected applying empiracism to ethics. Again, my memory is fuzzy, but I believe that Kant further argues that ethical rules are fixed, since any rational actor properly reasoning from first principles would eventually land on the same set of rules. It should not be surprising that contemporary ethical systems yield similar results in everyday situations because nobody will get published with their ethical theory of "why you should murder at least one innocent person per day."
- vintermann 2mo agoIt's not about what you actually want in this case, but what you could want. It's impossible to want people to betray your trust, because if you wanted it then it wouldn't be betraying your trust. So that type of lying is strictly forbidden. You do not want to be deceived. But if include in "lies" such things as reading fiction aloud, then that can be permissible as you can want that: you aren't really deceived or betrayed.