philosophical inquiry (cont.)

I would love to share. Here is the exact post:

http://forums.empiresmod.com/showpost.php?p=252820&postcount=40

 

Relying on the self to make the right call? Interesting...

Hehe, nice

How about when you participate in debate as a person, on the battleground of life, rather than in the classroom? Hearts and minds are usually won when, if the opposition believes wholeheartedly in what they are debating, you open their mind to your argument and convince them to step across.

That makes a lot of sense. I have on occasion observed people not willing to continue an argument because they just don't want to face the truth. It's sad to say i've observed people not willing to continue an argument merely because they are tired of arguing, far more often.

Well, I enjoyed it. Thanks for taking the time to respond

Edit: Oh you posted. I assume you know that Chris changes his viewpoint frequently so he can play devil's advocate or troll in the most delectable way, right?

 

Yeah, so do I. But if he was trolling he did it in the worst way possible because I clearly walked away with the victory. Hinging your argument on the statement "I do not exist" is basically... well, let's just say he walked himself into a pretty tight corner during that inquiry.

 

It's not random if the question is pertinent to the subject matter of the debate - in this case, not only were the questions pertinent, but indeed crucial to making the point.

Dedication to the categorical imperative? I can think of none more dedicated to it than Immanuel Kant himself, so for an accurate answer you might venture into the past to ask him why it is so arbitrary. Also, pickled_heretic's argument is not an advocacy of Kant's categorical imperative at all. You have misunderstood this entire discussion, as well as the views of the people taking different positions in this debate. The people defending the imperative are very blatantly outlining exactly how they violate the imperative and expose its shortcomings as an approach to ethics.

Almost every single argument that has been constructed to oppose pickled's has misinterpreted Kant, invoked some kind of decision-making platform that is undoubtedly incompatible with Kant's categorical imperative, and has twisted everything to try and uphold Kant's imperative & its "universal application" to various situations. I see pickled's objective in this thread quite clearly, and will enjoy watching the rest of this thread play out. I believe there are some "oh shit" moments ahead.

 

But originally they weren't, because Brutos was merely using a more complex form of, "don't you think you should be more polite, Sirex?"

I see. Well my objective was to follow the thought I first had when pickled brought this debate first up in the other thread, which simply was; why would you pick up on something like that and then turn it into "Kant's principle was flawed, so taking it out of context and using it in a popularly viewed fashion makes you wrong, and you shouldn't do it anymore"?

My point isn't a debate on Kant's principles, but a rebuttal to the whole thing that started this, which is that Pickled took something that was used in a way all parties would understand, and chose to bring it out of context and use it in a fashion to not only make Brutos look silly, but to cause argument and debate until he was the winner.

Just seems like trolling to me. Personally (if i'd been in Brutos' shoes), I woulda just said "well, you know what I meant" and that would have been it.

 

You are stuck to those nazis so hard that surgery might be needed.

Treat people the way you want to be treated. If nazi followed it, they wouldn't be nazis. Here is your precious answer.

Ikalyx made some really good points. You just refuse to actuallu listen to other sides arguments, using same poor line of defence yourself.

Oh and i really hope he is trolling.

 

That is not true, everyone here exept pickled discusses the categorical imperative,
pickled discusses kants whole concept of society. He talks about something completly
different just to find arguments to justify his point of view. The whole discussion is
ONLY about the categorical imperative and not about that Kant suggested that you should
not lie or all the other crap. Its only about that one sentence and the logic behind it.
Beside that he clearly showed that he cheats to "win" arguments by bending the sentence
we talk about.

 

This was originally about Kant, as this was the post that started the debate:

Furthermore, the sentence in question is exactly 1/3 of the categorical imperative (or much less, depending on your perspective). It manifests itself in 3 formulations, of which the sentence we have discussed is the first.

"treat people the way you want to be treated" does not end when someone else doesn't treat you the way you want to be treated. There's no clause at the end that says "unless they treat you or someone you know badly." "treat people the way they treat you" is what you're advocating, and that is a famous precept of Satanism, not anything to do with the categorical imperative or Kant.

 

It is based on one presumtion: everyone obey those 3 rules.
If everybody did that, there wouldn't be any nazi-jew-basement problem.
And you are so wrong again. I knew what i said.

INB4h and i never said that i think that this is universal rule.

 

Of these two, which do you believe is the commonly described "golden rule:"

1. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

2. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, unless they start fucking with your shit. Then you can treat them like shit as well.

 

The discussion is about the categorical imperative and not about everything kant said.

Did you ever hear of the golden rule? Treat someone like you want to be treated, or in a more modern form: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." (Kant).

Probably every culture on this planet has developed some concept like that.



If this started the discussion its exactly about that sentence nothing more.
Stop trying to pretend the discussion is about anything else just to "win".
Its childish and anoying. Theirs no such thing like "dont lie" in the categorical imperative.
Its in Kants philosphy but thats not the topic here. You are just the same anoying prick like chris0132.

 

Yes, and treating people like you want to be treated applies to people you don't like either, otherwise the golden rule/categorical imperative should say "treat people how they treat you" instead, which as I said is a precept of satanism.

Do you like being lied to? No? Then you should treat others how you want to be treated by not lying to them. This applies to everyone, including the nazis, hence why this is the "categorical" imperative, that is, it can be applied to all situations.

If you decide to lie to the nazis and save the jews then you are doing so on the basis of some other moral code of conduct that is contradicting the golden rule and the categorical imperative.

 

Traditionally asking same question over and over again comes with lack of sleep, food and violence...

 

Are you suggesting that the example is not valid somehow?

 

If you did bother to read what i said, you would know.

 

Well, the golden rule says to do to everyone what you would have them do to you, right?

 

Surely there is more depth to the saying, rather than just "pick everything you don't like, and in every situation, don't do that". If there was life on the line and you were following this principle wouldn't you go, life>lie and reason that life weighed higher and lie to the nazi's?

And I tend to agree that the nazi's really wouldn't be doing that if they were following like the principle, like Zealoth suggested.

 

Doesn't matter. The categorical imperative and the golden rule both mandate that you treat the nazis as you would wish to be treated (irrespective of whether or not they reciprocate). If you want others to be truthful to you, and if you lie to the nazis, you are breaking the categorical imperative and the golden rule. If you value life over rule, then you're breaking the rule.

 

Ah I see. Makes sense....no wait, it doesn't. Ah well.

 

Could you please explain exactly what doesn't make sense about it?