Lying through all those examples, is dirtying those examples.Again, lying is wrong, so lying is always wrong, and it doesn’t matter what else the lie may happen to be: a beautiful sonnet, a sublime haiku, or an order for steamed hams. It’s a lie, so it’s wrong: end of discussion. — Theologian
I say it cannot forbid literally everything, without forbidding 'forbidding literally everything'. — Shamshir
It is an easy read to misunderstand. I submit you have not understood it, and commend it to your attention for the read it deserves. — tim wood
And that works well, if you take in to account that Kant was being specific - of 'the box', as it were.Kant says only to act in ways that you would allow everyone to act, all the time. — Theologian
Perspectively, you're on point.My response to that is that if you apply some creativity, you can describe any action in such a way that your description (or "maxim") also fits some behavior that you would never want to become universal. — Theologian
No, no, no, my dear.Take, for example, what I am doing right now: typing a string of characters into a keyboard. Now, most of the time I'm completely fine with allowing everyone to do that. But if that string of characters happens to be a launch code that kicks off thermonuclear Armageddon, then I am absolutely not! So according to Kant, I must now and forevermore judge typing to be a deeply immoral activity! — Theologian
That's a good one.Or, in the immortal words of Saint Bartholomew, who himself was quoting from Homer, "You're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't!" — Theologian
I would be inclined to say this applies to vernacular maxims and their connotations, but not to absolutes who pertain but to themselves.Therefore acting on maxims is itself immoral! — Theologian
To borrow a term from grammatical theory, Kantian deontology is “context insensitive.” — Theologian
Again, lying is wrong, so lying is always wrong, and it doesn’t matter what else the lie may happen to be: a beautiful sonnet, a sublime haiku, or an order for steamed hams. It’s a lie, so it’s wrong: end of discussion. — Theologian
But the one I want to raise here is that with a little creativity, literally every behavior can be described in such a way that it fits some “maxim” (as Kant uses the term) that you would not be happy for everyone to act in accordance with all of the time. — Theologian
For example, most of the time I’m okay with people squeezing their fingers. But if a particular finger happens to be wrapped around the trigger of a gun, and that gun is pointed at my head, then absolutely no, squeezing that finger is right out! And unless you happen to feel differently about guns pointed at your own sweet noggins, then no more finger squeezing for you, my dear Kantians! — Theologian
kantian ethics does not take care of delicate situations like these where a universal law fails to appear moral.But kant would argue it is the act which matters and the will. — Wittgenstein
I trust you realize what a manipulative whine this is. — tim wood
Traditionally, the CI has been applied to larger ethical themes like murder and stealing. How about more granular, everyday situations? Can deontology be applied to more nuanced scenarios?
At what point does the CI not apply? Can it work with any contradiction that arises, no matter how trivial or is this not meant to be applied to more daily situations of living? If not, why? That is the realm of most human activity. It's how we treat each other in everyday life, the small decisions, the hustle and bustle of living. — schopenhauer1
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.