Having a thought is a violation of someone else's autonomy? — Tzeentch
Well, I am interested in your opinion. If I wanted to know Kant's, I'd read Kant. — Tzeentch
Apparently Kant views himself as the all-benevolent person who ought to go about assigning people their moral duties. What do you think of this? I think it is profoundly silly. — Tzeentch
That last thread was not about lying. It was about violence. We may have discussed Kant's ideas of lying, but only insofar as it was relevant to violence. — Tzeentch
Other people's expectations do not change the nature of things, — Tzeentch
I don't see how they're all that different for the person who walks past. — Tzeentch
Should I go about having expectations and desires towards other people, and then derive all sorts of moral rights to have those things reciprocated? Or is this the moment we need to start appointing people with opinions on "what is reasonable", and we are back in the mud? — Tzeentch
I don't credit lawmakers with having a particularly solid grasp on the nature of things, and morality by extention. — Tzeentch
What's your point? What is the inconsistency or claim you find in Kant that disqualifies him as an ethicist? What mistake has he made? That is, that can be presented in something less than 29 pages of tying complicated knots. He des not tell people what to do; he tells them what they ought to do and why within the limits of his arguments. And how often have I read some citation that claims to undermine or throw over Kant, only to find the writer very likely has not even read his Kant, or not understood him on the points in question, or the one citing has in some way failed. — tim wood
Having a thought is a violation of someone else's autonomy? — Tzeentch
No, your decision not to answr is. Not answering is not a thought it is an act. — Tobias
Apparently Kant views himself as the all-benevolent person who ought to go about assigning people their moral duties. What do you think of this? I think it is profoundly silly. — Tzeentch
No, you do actually, ... — Tobias
... you think that ethics is independent from the expectations of others, ... — Tobias
dependent on the social good in the case of lying, but independent of the social good in case of violence... — Tobias
... apparently there is some Tzeentch who determines the nature of ethic, ... — Tobias
Kant thought we could rationally understand our duties or at least the grounds from which they sprang. He called that 'the moral law within'. It is not Kant that tells you, it is reason, at least according to Kant. — Tobias
So in case of violence we have a context independent ethical ethical system and in case of lying we do not. Thank you, much more consistent now. — Tobias
Other people's expectations do not change the nature of things, — Tzeentch
Well, that rather depend on the ' thing' under discussion doesn't it? — Tobias
the situation is different because in the situation you have been asked a question you have ignored someone whereas in the situation you have not been asked a question you have not ignored someone. Indeed also ignoring or not ignoring are socially determined behaviors / situations. — Tobias
However I see now that the mere existence of social world has been so far a mystery to you. — Tobias
The only point I am making is that not answering is an act as well and so does not absolve you from the dilemma of whether you have to tell the truth or not. You are just trying to wiggle out of that question by shifting the subject. — Tobias
Well, this assertion merely proves your utter disregard for decades of learning. — Tobias
Your phrase ' the nature of things' is unintelligible. — Tobias
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.