If yours are constitutive of reason, please advise me as to how. — tim wood
Dude, your analysis is praiseworthy and spot on. But is it really worth your time and effort? We're at 47 pages. When is enough enough? — S
the question is whether murder can be a general good, and not merely whether it could be a good for a few psychopaths. — Janus
This is not reasoned debate to the end of learning; it's just a street-fight. You have demonstrated your ignorance of any better way. From now on you're not S., but mere-s. Kant is not a joke, you are, but not a funny one. You're not worth arguing with, because you don't know how. — tim wood
Yes, I believe I've got this exactly, and have had it exactly. — tim wood
You’re right, it’s not impossible, if something new is available.
— Mww
New thought/belief. — creativesoul
But here's the difference: for you-all, it's "bad-in-my-opinion, but not only does that not make it bad, it makes it impossible for it to be bad, except in my opinion," & etc. — tim wood
trying to imply that we have no feeling about Hitler, — Isaac
If you had it then you wouldn't say that anyone's view amounts to "if S thinks that m isn't wrong, then R says that fact implies that m isn't wrong simpliciter" — Terrapin Station
You-all apparently need to personally suppose it bad, but do not acknowledge it as badness — tim wood
More to the point, you-all have stated that inasmuch as (presumably) the bad actors did not think their actions were bad, then it's nonsense to say they were bad. — tim wood
do you suppose reason and its products to be universalizable? — tim wood
You get to ask him if he did or ordered anything bad. He answers no, that he did not (this is to the judgment, not any factual matter). Question: we know that you think he did bad things. But did he do bad things? — tim wood
it amounts to the question of what the ground of any standards will be. — tim wood
As I've repeatedly pointed out (with no response, and this goes for tim wood too) this is only true of any particular level of granularity you choose. Murder is a subset of killing, it is a type of killing. So if you can't say "all killing is OK (you can't generalise the rule" it's OK to kill"), then does that make all killing bad?
Obviously it can't, and having this pre-defined answer in mind you move the goalposts such that you're able to change the question until it matches the answer you were looking for all along.
But why stop there? Killing by psychopaths is a subset of all murder, murder by people called Dave on a Tuesday at 6:00 is a subset of all murdering. Could it be rationally universalised by Dave, that such killing was OK? Yes it certainly could.
And how did Kant get around this problem? He fudged it with some waffle about having to be honest with yourself about what it is you're universalising. Which makes the whole thing subjective again since the satisfaction with one's self-honesty is a subjective judgement. — Isaac
I've no idea what purported sense of 'universal' is being put to use here? — creativesoul
Because sets of criteria can be thought of as being in layers. From a surface you dig down a little, but you can dig more, and more. The goal is to reach a limit.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident...". If you're not American and do not know this reference, google the American declaration of independence." That is a time in history when one group made a collective decision that appeals to any type of provable objective code.
It is my guess that most constitutions for government make such appeals. Certainly with respect to many civil movements in history, groups of people have made collective decisions that appeal to objective codes.
That's what making something bad morally is. Things are morally good or bad to someone.
The problem is that, semantically, the terms "morality, right and wrong" have connotations of objectivity. — Edward
Yes, which is most of the time, I'd say. — Edward
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.