Kant's moral and ethical theories make absolutely no sense.
The categorical imperative and deontology in general is stupid as fuck and has basically no real world value. The face that it was used in some court cases is pathetic too.
Anyone else hate Kantian ethics and all the morons that tout it as perfect?
>>7423526
I mean I don't like most of it but I don't sperg out like you. Some of it isn't bad but quite honestly he didn't even understand his theory enough to properly express it.
can you explain the categorical imperative?
>>7423552
Basically, (as far as I understand anyway), you take your principal of will, universalize it, and its immoral if there are contradictions.
So if you want to steal then it becomes >Everyone should steal if they want to
Naturally if everyone steals then there would be nothing left to steal, therefore its not logically sound and is immoral.
He was only given so much lip service because Christian nonsense ruled the roost for the past 200 years. He's on the way out.
>>7423526
Eh, while I do think Kantian ethics are bunk, if I did hold the position of the existence of moral facts I'd lean heavily in favor of them being deontological than not.
>>7423555
Sounds good to me. What's your problem with it?
I don't believe that morality actually exists but that's one way to cop out of it.
>>7423572
Its impossible to determine someone's principal of will, and he doesn't account for any consequences of an action.
>>7423526
it's generally accepted that kant's morals are autistic as fuck
>>7423572
IMO there's no reason we should want our will universalized.
Morons, all of you.
>>7423582
That's because the means ARE the ends, nigga.
Why do you think Marxism always results in a humanitarian catastrophe? Because the Marxist ethos of "there are no bad tactics, only bad targets" bleeds people of their humanity and puts sociopaths in power.
>>7423526
>"Some court cases"
You have no idea how influential kantian ethics has been to our legal systems and intuitive ethical thinking. If it's so weak, write a book that destroys it and become famous. Don't go on 4chan screaming it's shit without any arguments. Have you even read Kant?
Why doesn't it have any real world value? Having a moral system where you can treat humans as actual humans isn't of goals seems good and would be a fucking godsend if people actually followed it. Imagine a world where everyone followed Kant's ethics? That would be an actual utopia. I guess you could argue since we don't then its no use but the point of making it was creating an ethical system that could ferry us to this ideal.
>>7423770
*instead
>>7423555
>So if you want to steal then it becomes >Everyone should steal if they want to
>Naturally if everyone steals then there would be nothing left to steal, therefore its not logically sound and is immoral.
as if the universalization of property is acceptable beforehand.
>>7423555
It isn't that there's nothing left to steal. It goes further than that. It's that stealing wouldn't be possible because there's nothing left to steal, in that epitomised type of idealisation of the circumstance of the action.
It just takes things to their logical conclusion and checks to see if they are in fact 'conclusive' in the sense that they can be finished at all.
If they can't actually be finished, then they're violable of a categorical imperative. If they're violable of a categorical imperative, then they're wrong. Literally digital. You hate Kant because he spoke the actual truth.
>>7423526
I'm thinking of taking deontological egoism as a moral stance for my personal relationships.
Effectively, I will act with a good intent (the good really being a more stripped down version of the categorical imperative which allows exceptions for commerce, self-defence etc.) but only on my own terms. It seems like a contradiction in terms, but even Stirner often talks about the need for a "tempered egoism": a desire, not to be caught up just in your emotions, but to act calmly. I would extend this to selfish altruism, charity which I would take up if I feel the empathy benefit and general good will would help. Further, unlike typical egoism, while I still see myself as the highest concern in a moral act, I would not shy away from putting something transiently above that if I so thought that cause would be more attractive to me - so as Stirner declared nothing sacred other than the "I", I would declare nothing sacred at all, other than the value I saw in it at that current time.
Would this be an impossible philosophy to justify? I'm also in favour of a utilitarian government (Bentham's pragmatics are morally dead to me, but at a group level most people agree with them, so I would want an effective system of politics that could dole out the greatest level of autonomy while respecting the wishes of all (a contradiction perhaps to an egoist, but to me, I value a fair society even above myself, but crucially, out of the pleasure it gives me to see human flourishing) - without dissolving into a union of egoists [which is far too vulnerable and beyond our current means], taking the state as a "necessary evil" that safe-guards our sadly limited liberties)
I'm just trying to sketch these ideas together - effectively I think it's impossible to guarantee outcome so moral virtue shouldn't be held hostage to it, and given our subjectivity in realizing reality autonomy should be guaranteed to allow everyone to work out their own equally valid value system, providing it doesn't impinge on another's autonomy and stop them from likewise creating a personal value system - "the freedom of my first ends at the bridge of your nose" so to speak. Perhaps it is philosophically hypocritical to take such a position, which is my fear, and egoistic desire to absolve that.
Am I just really confused /lit/? I'm thinking about looking further into Virtue Ethics to help shape up my ideal reality and society.
>>7423526
How do great geniuses always have such wise eyes?
Do you think it's some kind of lucky gene, or a just from a furrowed thoughtful brow?
>>7424060
It is logically perfect. Complaints arise only through misunderstanding or half-understanding to be totally honest.
The real question is, how are you going to tell a person that something like ethics is actually totally objective and completely reducible to a single theory?
People just won't accept it on the basis of its absolute truth alone.
It is not impossible to know the intentions of an action. It's simply something which becomes known progressively. When anons before pointed out how heavily the modern legal system draws from Kantian theory, it is exactly the judicial dichotomy of judge and jury from which this progressive knowledge is gleaned. In Kantian parlance we say ethical determination. In other words ethics is not decided, but determined. This is how it deals with the apparent impossibility of 'reading one's mind' to know their true intention. Sufficiently.
>>7424319
If that doesn't make sense to you or seems altogether too obvious, then that should give you an idea of just how deeply embedded Kantian theory is in modern legal thought.
Not just of the notion of rational or empirical due process, but of the entire idea of determining guilt or innocence through the democracy of judicial arbiters.
>>7424319
>It is logically perfect
What if there arises a situation in which two categorical imperatives are at odds with one another?
>>7423555
If everyone had the same profession it wouldn't work.
If everyone didn't get a job it also wouldn't work.
Therefore, society is immoral.
>>7424340
there's only one categorical imperative, with three formulations
>>7423526
>stupid as fuck
One of the reasons I hardly post here. Somehow, I'm still amazed at how users, and for the most part largely uneducated, easily dismiss the claim of any philosopher or thinking.
/lit/ and /sci/ work as a nice test of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
>>7424355
I mean two universalizations. Like let's say wanting to make some one happy vs. honesty or loyalty vs. honesty.
>>7424373
You'd have to think if you'd what would be ideal if everyone lied even if those lies would bring happiness or loyalty.
And if everyone lied no one could believe anything, there would be no truth and I'd argue it's be the end of society as stipulated by a "social contract", in which honesty is implied.
>>7424394
*you'd have to think if it'd be ideal if everyone lied
sorry I had a brain fart, my multitasking skills are low.
>>7424394
So it can't be made more slightly specific like "lying to a sick relative about their mortality is fine"?
>>7424424
no, the imperative is an absolute, as in indipendent from a particular case. If it's universally wrong it's always wrong.
>>7423927
Can anyone help me out? Or point out some internal bullshit in this? Curious to hear a discussion about applying deontology to other brackets of philosophy.
>>7423667
Claiming the means are the ends is both an incredibly idealistic and an incredibly ignorant statement--literally moving the goalposts
Umm Kant can suck my dick.
That's my philosophy.
Negate that cunt
>>7423526
How did you guys get to the point where you understand kant and can read his books?
>>7423526
>>7424464
H-E-L-P
>>7426443
they started with the guys who lived in the Mediterrannean long ago
>>7426443
OP here, I'm not even very literary inclined. I'm a bio major, but I'm thinking this required ethics class and we're doing deontology.
