Here we differ. I read Kant as emphatically on the side of intent, the what goes in, and not at all on the side of what comes out, the consequence. And his as determined by, a function of, reason. I myself add that it seems to me that also on Kant's side is the idea of what you can control, or have some say over, v. what you cannot control or have no say over. In determining one's own action on the basis of Kantian best reason, a person is arguably doing the best he or she can. And there is in this no pretense of either anticipating fate or ignoring it, but rather taking it head on, perhaps hoping for the best, but not betting on it in lieu of the better of reason.Kantian thinking decides based on applicability to outcome no less than the consequentialist, — Enrique
I read Kant as emphatically on the side of intent, the what goes in, and not at all on the side of what comes out, the consequence. — tim wood
We differ, here, and I go so far as to say that I'm right and you're wrong. Actually, never mind me. But what's wrong? I think it correct to say that Kant worked hard to stay within that which reason could tell him. For one thing, reason cannot predict the future.This is because its outcome if adopted by everyone would be to make human society universally better, — Enrique
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.