Natalism is the ultimate failing of the categorical imperative
*unbalanced natalism
>>8044424
how come
What is the categorical imperative?
>>8044432
Read grundlegung der metaphysik der sitten to find out
>>8044438
cmon don't be a cunt
>>8044428
Why would the elimination of suffering be a priority over the continuation of life?
>>8044440
you mean dont be a kant xd
but srsly though i'd struggle to explain it and the book is rather short
or maybe you can check this page
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/
>>8044438
I have. I want you to elucidate your own understanding of it.
>>8044443
What has either to do with the categorical imperative?
>>8044432
if what you're doing would have negative consequences if everyone did it then don't do it
>>8044445
its not very good but I'm not op
If I were to explain it i'd say that is is something we ought to do unconditionally and eternally, i'd make a distinction with the hypothetical imperative, and I'd quote the passage from groundings that summarizes it into "act as if the maxim of your action were by your will to be applied as a universal law"
>>8044460
we presupposate that non-existence is better than existence which honestly is hard to defend but then it would be ez pz
>>8044465
I don't see any maxim, let alone one that takes the form of a universal law. I also don't see how you ground the presupposition that non-existence is "better" than existence.
>>8044460
>Now how do we draw implications about natalism, and vice versa, from this?
How would either be proven 'superior' than the other if not by the acceptance/actions of those willing to support the perspective?
>>8044473
no, to build the maxim you'd have to build it from the presupposition i talked about
and no I don't ground it cause im saying its hard to do and also im not op nor do I share his view
>>8044443
Because it informs no decisions, it only precludes other decisions.
Say what you want about the Nazis, but it's an ethos.
>>8044473
>I don't see any maxim, let alone one that takes the form of a universal law.
Kant and most of the world did. This was an attempt to base Christian morality purely in reason. It failed, but it's still a useful tool.
>I also don't see how you ground the presupposition that non-existence is "better" than existence.
He didn't, read the post.
>>8044450
>>8044454
>it's a "define philosophical concepts you are only hazily aware of" thread
ok here goes no peeking
the categorical imperative is a filter to apply to your actions i order to determine if those actions are moral. The filter is thus: that the action must be generalizable to the entire population of people in all situations such that it is universally moral
now do postmodernism
>>8044479
Could you formulate the maxim, please?
>>8044481
well thats not the categorical imperative per se (by that i mean that the filter isnt the CI) but the main idea is here
no idea wtf pomo is lol
>>8044417
Is this the most /lit/ cartoon? Xavierfags need not apply.
>>8044481
Not exactly, no. Moral actions are those that are initiated by a good will in conformity with the moral law. We cannot know the content of moral law, only its form, which is one of universality. All the categorical imperative really does is hold your maxim under the law of non-contradiction, which is a necessary precondition for its lawfulness.
>>8044492
>will in conformity with the moral law.
Not in conformity !
acting in accordance to morality =/= acting morally
>>8044482
For what exactly? For anti natalism? No, because it wouldn't be a maxim that made sense, but
I will abort my child
Everyone aborts all their children
Human race is dead
Therefore the maxim is giving birth... Or not depending on your views. I don't have a superb knowledge of Kant so I might be wrong. He really needed an editor.
>>8044495
(because an act in accordance could be a hypothetical imperative)
>>8044505
Ok I think that's correct now
>>8044417
categorical imperative? sounds spooky
>>8044496
I was asking you to formulate the maxim which you claim "Kant and most of the world" saw as derivable from the "[presupposition] that non-existence is better than existence".
>>8044524
dude are you high ? first of all there are two posters, and none claimed that such a statement is valid.
>>8044528
I am high, but I'm also lucid. Here are the posts in question:
>>8044460
>Now how do we draw implications about natalism, and vice versa, from [the categorical imperative]?
>>8044465
>we presupposate that non-existence is better than existence
>>8044473
>I don't see any maxim, let alone one that takes the form of a universal law. I also don't see how you ground the presupposition that non-existence is "better" than existence.
>>8044479
>Kant and most of the world did
>>8044482
>Could you formulate that maxim please?
>>8044496
>For what exactly?
>>8044524
>I was asking you to formulate the maxim which you claim "Kant and most of the world" saw as derivable from the "[presupposition] that non-existence is better than existence".
Are you not following?
>>8044533
well then the maxim that one should end life is pretty good, why do you not accept it ?
>>8044536
To end all human life would be to end the very possibility of not just moral willing, but any willing whatsoever. It is to will to not will, which is contradictory, and so cannot take the form of a universal law, and so cannot be a maxim for moral action.
Not just the categorical imperative, but pretty much any ethical consideration.
>>8044553
>It is to will to not will, which is contradictory
No, not really, since there is a temporal agent, the principle of non-contradiction isn't violated.
>>8044594
Introducing temporality does nothing for you here. If your maxim is to will at some future point in time to cease willing, then it cannot be universalizable, for it pertains to that particular point in time and not all possible points, so is again no maxim for moral action--it's merely a hypothetical imperative. And again, if the maxim to will to not will does take the form of universality, it is contradictory, and so cannot be a maxim for moral action.
>>8044607
Why does the maxim require willing ?
>>8044610
Insofar as we are concerned with moral worth we are concerned with the will. A maxim is a rational principle of action, i.e. an object of the will. We desire an end, we determine the means for attaining that end (we formulate a maxim), and we execute those means.
>>8044630
Your points have convinced me until further arguments.
