3 ms·
I enjoyed the post until we hit Kant. This "imperative": "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a univer
by gibsonf1 19y ago
I enjoyed the post until we hit Kant. This "imperative": "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." is the kind of idea that makes it "rational" to go out and kill all the Jews as the Nazi's so aptly demonstrated. They felt that the elimination of Jews should become a universal law. Note that this is a very different idea than: act only as you would want others to act towards you. It is rather: act only in a way that you think all others should act. A very different story, and a complete void as to the defining of "should".
Kant was not only confusing to himself and others, but his ideas were "dangerous" to the extent that ideas can be when used to justify actions.
- inklesspen 19y agoYou have an excellent point, but I do wish you could have avoided triggering Godwin's law. Perhaps you could edit it into a more everyday situation?
- gibsonf1 19y agoI never heard about Godwin's law before, but was amused to find this on the wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_lawhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_lawhttp://en.wikipedia...
- amalcon 19y agoThis is a misapplication of the categorical imperative. Of course, I suspect that you knew that; it's only a naive viewpoint that would cause someone to miss that. The correct "universal law" to use in this case, would be "Eliminating people who you find problematic." It would take a truly insane person to actually want this as a universal law. Tying the rule to any specific group of people makes it not universal. Of course, if someone only understands "philosophy-lite," it becomes an easy thing to mix up.
- juanpablo 19y agoI'm thinking of a person or a small group of persons who are trying to do that right now.
- gibsonf1 19y agoI believe the Nazis actually used "Eliminating animals which you find problematic" as they redefined person to exclude those of Jewish origin. So, again, Kant is quite useful in justifying just about anything.
- byrneseyeview 19y ago"So, again, Kant is quite useful in justifying just about anything." I don't see how you could conclude that. Your argument is that if the Nazis believed that they were doing the right thing, they'd believe that Kant would think they were doing the right thing, too. So you're only correct if you take their beliefs at face value, in which case I don't understand why you're complaining.
- gibsonf1 19y agoThe reason I conclude that is because Kant's theory seems to ultimately rest on someone/something defining what should be done, and therefore, it is completely subjective. If I am incorrect in thinking this, please enlighten me with quotes from Kant proving otherwise.
- byrneseyeview 19y ago"The reason I conclude that is because Kant's theory seems to ultimately rest on someone/something defining what should be done, and therefore, it is completely subjective." Well, yes. That is the idea. Basically, he's trying to suggest that our moral systems be universal -- that we not consider something moral unless it's moral regardless of who does the considering.
- gibsonf1 19y ago
- DanielBMarkham 19y agoYeah Kant isn't the end of that discussion. And you hit the ball out of the park with your example. As you can see, I qualified it with a variant on the golden rule. I also pointed out the goal of both maxims was creating the most utilitarian value. I would argue that those bad guys -- you know the ones with the cool uniforms with leather boots and the strange salute who worshiped that guy with the mustache -- were way off base. You can argue that killing the Jews should be a universal law, but you can't argue that one bunch of people trying to kill an entire other bunch of people for subjective reasons is a good thing for society at large or is something that should be repeated.
- brl 19y agoThe categorical imperative is probably the single most famous idea in moral philosophy. It would have had some obstacles in reaching that status if it gave the wrong answer on things like genocide. I think the way you're supposed to interpret it is asking if a universal law which permits arbitrarily murdering people sounds reasonable or not.
- gibsonf1 19y agoInteresting. Fame = correctness? And yes, as far as I know, it gives the wrong answer on genocide. Could you show how this "maxim" in conjunction with others by Kant would prevent someone using them to justify genocide?
- olavk 19y ago> act only as you would want others to act towards you So if I'm a masochist I should be sadistic to other people? Any ethical rule can be misused if you leave out common sense.
- gibsonf1 19y agoExactly - I'm no fan of that maxim either, but it is definitely better than Kant's version in the sense that at least the doer will have the same potentially done to them.
- byrneseyeview 19y ago"So if I'm a masochist I should be sadistic to other people?" Only if you want to be set on fire by arsonists.
- gills 19y agoI think the imperative could be reformulated to state "act only according to that maxim for which the conjunction of universal viewpoints does not result in a logical contradiction", where the Nazis obviously mistook disjunction for conjunction.
- gibsonf1 19y agoUm, you then have a problem with "universal viewpoint". What is it, who defines it, etc.