I've read Groundworks of Metaphysics of Morals. What work of Kant should I read next?
Prolegomena
Read it a second time and try to understand everything. Then you can move on to Critique of Practical Reason, which further explains the framework he laid out in GMM.
>>7503562
Definitely read some online walkthroughs or hit up a uni library.
It's harder than you think. Good read though. Do upu want more Kant or more books on Ethics?
>>7503202
kant is so deprecated
>>7503562
>the third section seems still obscure though
The third section is the most important part as it leads into the second Critique.
If you can wrap your head around his idea of freedom, you will have already gone further than 95% of the population who has heard of Kant. 97.5% of people who have an opinion on Kant here know -- from all his work, mind you -- only his first formulation of the categorical imperative, so you're already way ahead of the curve, in my opinion. It's pathetic and shows the utter intellectual bankruptcy of this place or perhaps the internet as a whole.
There is a deep connection between his ethics and his ontology/epistemology. 98.75% of people who have dared to actually read any Kant whatsoever still couldn't tell you what this connection was if their lives depended on it, which, according to Kant, it does (hint: I already mentioned it in this post).
This is the worst place on earth to do any explaining, so all I can do is try to create a desire in you to go further. Kant is more than just a gatekeeper to be overcome as fast as possible to get to the more interesting philosophers. The very fact he has garnered this reputation should tell you something about the significance of his work.
Even the most radically non-traditional philosophers of today owe the vast majority of their projects to him. Yet, so few on here have any inkling of the true meaning of his philosophy. This is partially because its main ideas can be summed up in such a way that they appear deceptively obvious, almost irrelevant, but in that subtlety, as in all great philosophies, lies an immeasurable achievement of human genius. The other part is that most people on here have emotional problems and pretend as pseuds to validate themselves anonymously for no reason; or they are just plain idiots who move their fingers the same way they move their sphincters.
>>7503792
Possible pleb here. Tell me if I'm wrong.
Doesn't Kant urge that we must assume that we have free will in regards to our moral decisions in order for morality to exist? So, in a sense, doesn't he presuppose the axiom that free will exists in egards to our moral decisions and only in regards to our moral decisions? Please, let me know if I'm wrong.
did kant give explicit principles following his categorical imperative ?
also, do we know what he did before writing his books ?
was he always a recluse ? do we know why he chose this life ? [was it a choice like Montaigne]
>>7503792
>Yet, so few on here have any inkling of the true meaning of his philosophy. This is partially because its main ideas can be summed up in such a way that they appear deceptively obvious, almost irrelevant, but in that subtlety, as in all great philosophies, lies an immeasurable achievement of human genius.
then expose correctly his doctrine in your own words.
>>7503809
what you are thinking about is a transcendental deduction: where he assumes the existence of something in order to explain it and then prove its existence (in so many words..). there are dozens of transcendental deductions in the CPR, free will is not one of them.
free will is not one of them because kant is trying to show that (human) free will is something entirely separate from the phenomenal world, what is explainable by newtonian physical law. if free will were explained by physical law, it would not be freedom. nonetheless, the "proof" of freedom is not a transcendental deduction, it is one of the foundational principles of the whole Kantian project.
>>7503849
I have no interest in talking to people whose only goal is to dismiss Kant. Knowledge of Kant is no requirement for a discussion, but a minimal desire to seriously engage with his ideas is. Until I see more that here, I can think of no worse way to spend my time than dignifying your kneejerk call-out. As if I need to prove myself here for some reason (whoever the fuck I am, by the way)? I basically wait around for Kant threads because I love talking about philosophy, but I've rarely not been disappointed.
I'm not going to fight the uphill battle of getting fools to take Kant seriously anymore when everyone should already recognize that his importance is beyond debate.
>>7503809
Different anon here, but it's not exactly the case that Kant merely assumes human (transcendental) freedom to avoid undesirable consequences for morality. Rather (by the time of the Critique of Practical Reason, at least) he argues that we feel moral obligation - we are confronted, for example, by feelings of guilt for actions we've comitted in the past, by feelings of profound awe and approval for people who show great moral integrity and courage, and in geneal we make judgments about what ought to be done in the world, regardless of what is actually done in the world - and the undeniable fact that humans have a moral consciousness of this sort presupposes that humans have freedom. He doesn't just arbitrarily assume that humans are, in-themselves, free; instead, he says that we must infer such freedom if we are to remain rationally consistent with the above immediate facts of experience. In other words, moral freedom is a necessary precondition of those experiences of conscience, and thus Kant is using his transcendental method of argument that he repeats so often throughout the critiques; though in the first critique, the conclusions of these arguments are meant to reveal the transcendental aspects of human reason in its theoretical use, while in the second critique these arguments aim at conclusions about the transcendental aspects of reason in its practical use.
Kant takes some technical steps to clarify that it's the same faculty of reason that guides us through both domains, that of the spatiotemporal natural world and that of the intelligible moral world; this is part of what I take >>7503792 to be saying about the
> deep connection between his ethics and his ontology/epistemology.
Fundamentally, it's the same form-generating power - the same *spontaneity* - of the human mind that A) provides laws for investigating the physical world, and B) provides laws for navigating the moral arena. This spontaneous power of producing laws makes human reason self-sufficient for not merely knowing what morality is, but for legislating what morality is; this is autonomy, and it's what Kant points to in the Groundwork when explaining why all persons have dignity - why they all must be respected as ends-in-themselves, as legislators with equal rights and status constituting a community of moral agents. Dignity is due to autonomy, autonomy is a manifestation of spontaneity, and all of these express the self-sourced power called "freedom."
>>7503430
No one understands Kant. Not even Kant.
>>7505267
Meaning what? He was inconsistent? Wrote nonsense?
ok
>>7503843
> did kant give explicit principles following his categorical imperative ?
Yes - some in the Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals and in the Critique of Practical Reason, but mostly in the Metaphysics of Morals (the one I haven't read of the three). Some minor works, like On a Supposed Right to Lie from Philanthropy, and On Turning Out Books, also apply his ethical principles to specific cases.
> also, do we know what he did before writing his books ?
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-development/
> was he always a recluse ? do we know why he chose this life ? [was it a choice like Montaigne]
He was always a bachelor, but he didn't live in isolation. He was popular in the social scene around Koenigsberg, and frequently hosted dinner parties. He also lived with a servant named Lampe for many years. One of the reasons he didn't marry in his younger years was because he didn't make enough money to support a wife and, presumably, a family.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/feb/12/highereducation.artsandhumanities
>>7503202
Kantian ethics are stupid as fuck.
Like literally only the biggest fedora faggots would follow this shit.
Virtue ethics forever the best
You dont have a free will ur brain does it thang and u kind of are a waste prdocut of l of its systems
>>7508836
I think you mean hedonistic act utilitarianism.
>>7508836
> fedora faggots would subscribe to an ethics that postulates the existence of a god and an immortal soul.
Kant was a 5 foot tall manlet. Why would you read anything of his?
>>7503202
/r9k/
Aristotle:
>There are situations where you need to lie, and a virtuous man would do so - for example telling your pig wife that she's pretty
Kant:
>You can never lie, even if it's the right thing to do!
>Honey, how do I look?
>Ur an ugly PIG!!!!!! I follow the categorical imperative so I take the moral high ground by telling you so!!!!11
Kantian ethics are worthless
>>7509577
Kant's ethics is open to criticism, but this is a rookie attempt. He says more than once that the frequent difficulty of following the categorical imperative, acting as we are duty-bound rather than acting as we would merely like to, only highlights the purity and absolute value of the moral law - which ultimately rests on the absolute value of personal autonomy. To lie to another person to avoid hurting their feelings is to abuse their capacity for self-determination.
>You can never lie, even if it's the right thing to do!
Literal nonsense.
>>7510149
>Literal nonsense.
Except that's literally his point of view on lying.
In a situation where it would be beneficial to lie Kant would say not to. This extends beyond lying of course, and is a serious problem with the CI and deontology as a whole.
>He says more than once that the frequent difficulty of following the categorical imperative, acting as we are duty-bound rather than acting as we would merely like to, only highlights the purity and absolute value of the moral law - which ultimately rests on the absolute value of personal autonomy.
What the fuck is the point of an ethical theory that doesn't work in real life?
Ethics isn't metaphysics, it needs to be directly applicable to real situations.
Aristotle got this shit right thousands of years ago with Virtue ethics. The categorical imperative is nothing more than an academic circle jerk written by a literal autist.
>>7510172
>Ethics isn't metaphysics, it needs to be directly applicable to real situations.
They are both applicable in the sense you are speaking of ethics.In the sense! Did you got it?! Hahahaha....ha...ha...sorry.
How would one 'study' Kant as an autodidact?
Read an introduction, read the primary source, read it again with commentary, read essays/articles on his thought, then read the primary source again? Abstain from sex and go on scheduled walks?
>>7510229
You can't really apply deontology to day to day life. Even if you could, there is absolutely no motivation for people to follow it; unlike virtue ethics.
>>7510255
>unlike virtue ethics.
>unlike
you are truly joking. show us 5 illustrations of your ''virtue ethics'' IRL.
>>7510172
show me one instance where the Categorical Imperative recommends the wrong choice of action
>>7508836
>the thing I don't like is shit
> the thing I do like is the best
when is winter break over for the high schoolers
>>7505267
>hiding own stupidity/weakness behind objectivity
Ok kid. Back to school.
>>7510172
> Except that's literally his point of view on lying.
No. What you've been wanting to say, it seems, is that YOU think it can be moral to lie to another person to avoid hurting their feelings, or to avoid other unpleasant consequences, and you think Kant is incorrect when he affirms the opposite of this principle. But what you wrote was that the same principle can be both moral and immoral in the same ethical system - you wrote that Kant claims
>You can never lie, even if it's the right thing to do!
When in truth, Kant would never claim that lying can be
> the right thing to do
It's YOU, from your own ethical system, that would defend the principle "lying can be morally right." (And I'm not saying that I personally disagree with you on that.)
> In a situation where it would be beneficial to lie Kant would say not to.
Kant would agree that lying can be beneficial to our income, beneficial to our status, beneficial to our pleasure, beneficial to the pleasure of our loved ones, and beneficial to pretty much anything that makes our sensible life enjoyable. But none of these are beneficial to our moral virtue; if we let them be the guiding motives of our actions, seek them as goals of the utmost value, we can live a very gratified and pleasant life, but not a moral one. In other words, without a deeper argument, he just wouldn't grant that the demands of morality can be satisfied merely with what rewards our behavior brings to us or our loved ones.
> What the fuck is the point of an ethical theory that doesn't work in real life?
Aside from repeating the previous point about the radically different criteria Kant has on what it means for ethics to "work," I'll defer again to his Metaphysics of Morals, where he applies his moral principles to many real life scenarios. The fact that you wouldn't like many of his evaluations doesn't mean that his ethics is totally inapplicable.
Ethics isn't metaphysics, it needs to be directly applicable to real situations. >>7507365
> Aristotle got this shit right thousands of years ago with Virtue ethics.
More exagerrations. For the massive debt we owe Aristotle, and even granting for the sake of argument that his ethical system was the best, the final word on ethics wasn't written 2400 years ago.
> a literal autist.
> still thinking this meme has any force of insult.
>>7510172
> Ethics isn't metaphysics
Kant would agree! But ethical judgments apply to behavior in the empirical world; thus, just as philosophy needs to critique reason in its theoretical function of knowing the empirical world (Kant's first critique), philosophy also needs to critique reason in its practical funtion of judging actions and setting goals (Kant's second critique). Ethics needs a supporting network of basic rational principles if we are to intelligibly and consistently navigate the moral arena; this support to ethics is precisely what Kant's Groundwork to the Metaphysics of Morals was written to provide.
>>7512087
Again, going back to my simple example; Aristotle would let you avoid a divorce, while Kant would fuck your shit up.
>With lying, it would logically contradict the reliability of language. If it were universally acceptable to lie, then no one would believe anyone and all truths would be assumed to be lies. The right to deceive could also not be claimed because it would deny the status of the person deceived as an end in itself. The theft would be incompatible with a possible With lying, it would logically contradict the reliability of language. If it were universally acceptable to lie, then no one would believe anyone and all truths would be assumed to be lies. The right to deceive could also not be claimed because it would deny the status of the person deceived as an end in itself. The theft would be incompatible with a possible kingdom of ends. Therefore, Kant denied the right to lie or deceive for any reason, regardless of context or anticipated consequences.le kingdom of ends. Therefore, Kant denied the right to lie or deceive for any reason, regardless of context or anticipated consequences.
Unfortunately, the categorical imperative simply does not work in real life. Kant is the classical definition of a moral fag, or a lawfag if you play SMT.
Also the fact that he was a complete autist does matter because it gives a lot of insight into his theory. He was incomparable with human society, and so is his work on ethics.
Aristotle on the other hand is probably the single more successful human being that ever walked this dreadful plant.
>Ethics needs a supporting network of basic rational principles if we are to intelligibly and consistently navigate the moral arena; this support to ethics is precisely what Kant's Groundwork to the Metaphysics of Morals was written to provide.
Except Kant does not provide this at all. In fact, even his "basic" principals would completely fly over the heads of most people. Virtue ethics is simple, easy to understand and is applicable to real life. The final word on ethics was written 2400 years ago. Everything after is a nothing more than an academic circle jerk.
>>7511187
>Do you not know what virtue ethics are?
so you cannot find a few illustrations in daily life of virtue ethics nor able to tell us how to check that these illustrations illustrate indeed virtue ethics ?
>>7512142
incompatible*
>>7512142
> The final word on ethics was written 2400 years ago
Slavery's okay everybody - nature's slaves actually benefit from the institution more than they would without it.
And yeah, women are lesser to men by nature too.
>>7512374
Slavery in ancient Greece wasn't the same as American slavery.
Women are lesser to men by nature in many areas, namely physical ability- which the Greeks very much valued.
>>7512391
Even granting that there was a difference, it's still antiquated and morally flawed to use as human tools those you deem to be intellectually inferior.
And again, I can accept that women are generally physically weaker than men; this doesn't mean that they should have an enequal status in the home or in the government. Women and men in general can balance out whatever strengths and weaknesses that each of their sexes entails, without one sex having a lower social status. (Which, not surprisingly, is also an ssue in which Kant's ethics/politics is flawed.)
>>7513593
>morally flawed
>antiquated
Nice spooks.
>>7512142
>>7512358
> the fact that he was a complete autist does matter because it gives a lot of insight into his theory. He was incompatible with human society, and so is his work on ethics.
Again, exaggeration. He said himself that he spent significant amounts of his time "thinking [his] life away," and he had plenty of personality quirks, but his social life and command of lecture halls actually contributed to his fame.
