3 ms·
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
by gibsonf1 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. 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.