Why is every thread that says anything remotely negative about 2.25 being closed?

I'm actually stating that it's a BAD rule to have. Two of the things that enable this bizarre juxtaposition is Kant's universalization of truth-telling and his concept that every human being must be treated as a means to an end.

I'm telling you that Kantianism is actually harmful. If truth-telling is universal, and I find myself in a situation where lying is more utilitarian than telling the truth, then I must tell the truth regardless of the outcome, because I have accepted under kantianism that lying is always harmful.

Furthermore, treating each human as an ends to their own means forces me to assist and aid people even when they are doing something which is contradictory to my goals. In the aforementioned example, I could say that my end is to save the lives of a jewish family that I am harboring in my basement. I could treat the nazi soldier as a means to my end by telling him that I don't in fact have any jews in my basement and I have no idea where any jews are. However, under kantianism I would be forced to treat the nazi soldier as an end to his own means, and in conjunction with the categorical imperative, I would basically be forced to either tell the truth or say nothing (which would be awfully suspicious).

So what I'm saying is that sometimes it's okay to treat people as a means to your end. Basically I'm saying that Kant was wrong.

 

offtopic offtopic offtopic offtopic...

 

You are not getting it.

THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE IS WHAT ENABLES NAZIS, NOT KANT HIMSELF. KANT WASN'T ALIVE WHEN THE NAZIS WERE AROUND.

Besides, philosophical paradigms are nothing like Newtonian physics. We can just design an entirely new system from the ground up if another one is evidently broken.

 

when following kants rules, one could keep quiet and not tell on the Jews, anything that happens then is completely on the Nazi's blame-scale

it would probably get you shot as soon as the Jews where found, but i doubt it would matter to me, i dont like kants rules anyway, i live by my own version of "do as you want others to do to you", and telling a lie from time to time is part of it, we do not live in a perfect world, so imperfect solutions are needed, even if they have the chance to backfire in your face

 

If you're following the golden rule, you're essentially following the categorical imperative. It's the same thing with different flavor text.

However, I would posit that you're not following either one. You don't ever want people to lie to you, for instance, so when you lie to others you are actually breaking the universalization principle central to the categorical imperative. You're saying that in some cases, it's more important to look at actions and their consequences rather than rules. this is in DIRECT OPPOSITION of both the golden rule and the categorical imperative. I daresay it even sounds logical. But you need to acknowledge that you're not following a rule at all, you're looking at consequences, which is really the opposite.

You are being a CONSEQUENTIALIST, which was exactly the kind of person that kant was criticizing when he developed his philosophy.

Edit: dawkins is also a faggot retard, but for other reasons.

 

But that's the problem. There are already philosophies that try to incorporate the best of worlds. Try virtue ethics, for instance, which looks at both rules AND consequences. it also predates both deontological and teleological philosophical paradigms by hundreds of years and was developed by arguably the most philosophically inclined people the world has ever seen.

The categorical imperative is concerned only with rules and obedience. Whether or not your lie is a little white one, of if it saves the lives of thousands, matters not to the giant obelisk of Kant's legacy - you are VIOLATING the CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE.

 

All right. Well, you have failed to persuade me that the categorical imperative is worth more than dogshit, or that you even follow the categorical imperative at all.

Furthermore, I believe that I have conclusively proven that the categorical imperative forces otherwise good-intentioned people into committing terrible acts in some situations.

 

You should try arguing about determinism.
/me grabs popcorn and soda.

On this one i side with Brutos. He's the good guy
One can't debate with pickled as he will continouosly re-state his point, without giving any solid arguments, ignoring anything that doen't fit his worldview.

 

I understand, zealoth, that some of these concepts are hard to grasp for someone who is new to philosophy, but Kant himself basically shot himself in the foot on this topic before he died, admitting that the categorical imperative forces people to commit actions which most would consider to have terrible consequences. You can view the link I already posted for more information.

 

How pedantic do you want your grammar checking.

Do you want spelling and basic grammar, or things like whether to use a comma or a semicolon.

 

You cannot possibly have idea if i'm new to philosophy or not.

“Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” is a purely formal or logical statement and expresses the condition of the rationality of conduct rather than that of its morality, which is expressed in another Kantian formula: “So act as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in another, always as an end, and never as only a means.”

Thats the Categorical Imperative.

Kant denied the right to lie or deceive for any reason, regardless of context or anticipated consequences.
Because good excuses open doors for bad excuses. If Hitler didn't lie, he would never get the power.

You can deny god with simple statement "Create the unliftable stone and lift it" - you can construct anything you could possibly think of using imperfect, crude language that humans use. There cannot be 100% accurate rule describing world.

I might not have said what i wanted as english is not "my first fucking language"

 

Take it to the off topic forum if you want to discuss philosophy.

 

continued here