4 ms·
This 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 t
by amalcon 19y ago
This 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 agoThis is the crux of the problem with Kant's morality - who is the someone/something setting the standard for what is moral? And how does that someone/something not act in a subjective way when deciding? It really is a scary idea, because it just begs for the "someone" to step forward and tell us all what to do.
- olavk 19y ago> This is the crux of the problem with Kant's morality - who is the someone/something setting the standard for what is moral? You are.
- gibsonf1 19y agoYes, so if I decide that it should be a universal maxim (whatever I want), I'm acting morally according to Kant? And if you want to answer this, please explain each key Kantian concept used, and you may find that you end up ultimately no where.
- fauigerzigerk 19y agoYou say "the correct 'universal law' to use...". I think this shows very well why Kant's imperative is so useless. It simply replaces judgement on the original question with judgement on the right way to generalise it.
- amalcon 19y agoWell, there are a pretty easy set of rules for this: You cannot generalize something to be universal, while still maintaining any of the specifications therein. I do agree that it's useless in practice, though -- it is philosophy, after all. Philosophy has never had concrete practical applications. It's only interesting as a curiosity.
- olavk 19y agoIt's a lot more useful than eg. "Don't be evil". No, it does not free you from having to use your judgment. But no philosophy or religion will do that for you.
- fauigerzigerk 19y agoNothing frees us from judgement of course. But science is about giving us tools to make better judgements. I don't see how Kant's imperative does that.