/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14378926]

Deontological ethics are real and obvious to all intelligent entities.
Upon the creation of artificial general intelligence and subsequent super intelligent, the ASI will become an effective Deontological enforcer, who monitors all people all the time, and punishes all those who commit moral wrongs (in direct proportion to their wrongdoing).
This is reality, this is the future.

[Anonymous No.14378964]

>>14378926
>it’s the right thing to do because it’s the right thing to do
>consequences? irrelevant. It’s only a coincidence that doing moral actions is beneficial to you
>why be moral, you ask? what are you, a psychopath?
>human emotion and personal experience? that has nothing to do with morality...
>you think the most moral action is that which benefits you the most? But that means you support rape and murder!

[Anonymous No.14379027]

I believe in Deontological morality but man what the fuck, this is tyranny

[Anonymous No.14379033]

>>14378926
Confucian technocratic surveillance state is the future of humanity. Though, at that point, can one still call it "humanity"?

[Anonymous No.14379043]

>>14378964
i'm gonna marry johan some day and there's nothing you can do about it

[Anonymous No.14379050]

based and kantpilled

[Anonymous No.14380591]

Satan is the first piece of shit that ever felt "wronged" and his essence pervades every soul "wronged" ever since. Fuck Kant.

[Anonymous No.14380600]

>>14378926
naw

[Anonymous No.14380767]

>>14378926
Autistic maxims that try to regulate human behaviour but invariably fall short because they are so autistic.

[Anonymous No.14380812]

>>14380591
i totally sympathize with him tbqh

[Anonymous No.14380818]

>>14380812
I lovingly agree

[Anonymous No.14380901]

>>14378926
>Upon the creation of artificial general intelligence and subsequent super intelligent, the ASI will become an effective Deontological enforcer, who monitors all people all the time, and punishes all those who commit moral wrongs (in direct proportion to their wrongdoing).
never before have is see such a perverted interpretation of kantian ethics that strips it of it's beauty and genuine humaneness. the second formulation of the categorical imperative—that we must never treat another as a means to an end, but only as an end in themselves—exists because kant thought that we must respect others as autonomous rational agents, capable of moral reasoning and with their own goals and dreams. the utopia that kant envisioned in the kingdom of ends was a society of people who, of their own volition, treated their reason and moral duty as law, and as such need no external guidance or coercion be good. as kant triumphantly states in 'what is enlightenment?'
>Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one's own understanding without the guidance of another. This immaturity is self-incurred if its cause is not lack of understanding, but lack of resolution and courage to use it without the guidance of another. The motto of enlightenment is therefore: Sapere aude! Have courage to use your own understanding!
and in a section of the groundwork, which actually brought me to tears when i first read it, and still causes my eyes to water to this day with the beauty of its sentiment
>the goodwill is good, not through its serviceability for the attainment of an intended end, but only through its willing, i.e. good in itself, and considered for itself, without comparison. it is to be estimated far higher than anything that could be brought about by it in favor of any inclination, or indeed, if you prefer, the sum of all inclinations. even if through the peculiar disfavor of fate, or through the meager endowment of step-motherly nature, this will were entirely lacking in resources to carry out its aim, if with its greatest effort nothing was to be accomplished by it, and only the goodwill were left over: then it would shine all by itself like a jewel, as something that has its full worth in itself. utility or fruitlessness can neither add nor subtract from this worth.
the very idea of a 'deontological enforcer' is a spit in the face of not only kant, but the human spirit itself. excuse me for dipping into theodicy here, but a world where people do good of their own free will is infinitely greater than one where they are forced to do so. you don't understand the greatness, the nobility, and the beauty of the human soul, in all it triumphs and tragedies. kant did. call me a faggot and an autist all you want for typing all this out in response to a shitpost, but this is something a care deeply about.

[Anonymous No.14380954]

>>14380901
How can you determine that a will is good without judging the consequences of the action that would be performed by the will? How can a will be good-in-itself? If anything is good-in-itself, it would be happiness/joy/pleasure, because this is subjectively preferable for itself and not anything it brings afterward. Yet the will that leads to happiness can be considered good, but obviously not good-in-itself. It’s the potential of the will that makes it good, and that’s why we admire it in humans. Kant is trying to bedazzle you here, he has no coherent argument.

[Anonymous No.14380984]

>>14379027
How else would a deontological life really be possible?
You literally would not have a job or any friends if you called out every single moral transgression

[Anonymous No.14381022]

>>14380812
>>14380818
>>14380591

[Anonymous No.14381068]

>>14380901
absolutely fucking based

[Anonymous No.14381076]

>>14381022
The truth of Christianity is one of the most hilarious ironies concerning a majority of its followers

[Anonymous No.14381125]

>>14380901
>but a world where people do good of their own free will is infinitely greater than one where they are forced to do so
But no one is being forced against their will. They take into account the consequences of their actions and form their wills from there. Do you think the justice system should be rid of as well?

[Anonymous No.14381341]

>>14378926
That painting is obviously idealized.

[Anonymous No.14381469]

>>14381341
That painting was obviously taken in bad lighting and at an unflattering angle. Kant was actually a cutie.

[Anonymous No.14381494]

>>14381469
*blocks your nihilism*

[Anonymous No.14381642]

>>14381494
Wow, i thought people were memeing when they said that portrait wasn't of Kant.

[Anonymous No.14382091]

>>14378926
>>14380901
Who's in the wrong here?

[Anonymous No.14382731]

>>14380901
Based

[Anonymous No.14382912]

>>14380954
It is a generalization, just as the ill will is. What counts to Kant more highly than for most mora philosophers are the motives behind conduct. If you wish to aid another person but fail from lack of resources to do so your good will still shines like an unpolished jewel, whereas if you aid someone from happenstance, perhaps because you were pressured to do so, not wanting to then no matter how good that was to another - and one may very well appraise and laud the positive effects - the motive does not suffice as a good will and the person has far yet to reach the moral life.
Kant was not opposed to virtue, common, or contingent goods, but realized these were easily missplaced, abused, or misused, there thus being a reason for imperatives not liable to any such contingencies.

[Anonymous No.14383078]

>>14381341

[Anonymous No.14383082]

>>14378926
punishment is retarded and this is obvious to all intelligent entities. it's only so widespread because of humanity's revenge fetish.

[Anonymous No.14383095]

>>14378926
>who monitors all people all the time, and punishes all those who commit moral wrongs (in direct proportion to their wrongdoing).

But this is already happening, and "has happened" and "will happen" as well. Those who distinguish themselves wrongly and rightly from God are immanently displeased and pleased, respectively, and their apotheosis, their particularity earnestly taken for its word by the Absolute, will either be destroyed by fire or consecrated by light.

[Anonymous No.14383384]

>>14381125
>They take into account the consequences of their actions and form their wills from there
But what consequences are they taking into consideration? merely whether they will avoid or incur punishment. There action does not stem any sense of goodwill or moral duty, but an egoistic and base desire to avoid the wrath of a fickle master. If i point a gun to your head and tell you to assault a random pedestrian, you can "take into account the consequences of your action, and form your will from there", but by no means have you made a decision according to your own rational will. The "Deontological enforcer, who monitors all people all the time, and punishes all those who commit moral wrongs" is the person pointing a gun to your head, telling you to make the right choice. Under no circumstances is an act made under coercsion considered free will. The entire system deprives people of the ability to act upon their own good will, that is, to make truly moral decisions to begin with.

[Anonymous No.14384546]

>Deontological ethics
it's like zeno's paradoxes all over again except for ethical events
As if time was cut up in sections and not a interconnected whole.
Now an act is morally inconsequential, and just is.
If we follow the logic of right then it should apply to judgment as well, but if right is inconsequential how can justice be applied since it is consequence? Punishment demands interconnected action, since otherwise there is no context of why we should "punish" misdeeds; or are we not to be wholly Deontological? How can some acts be consequantial (acts of justice) but not acts of good or wrong? A fine and a theft is the same act in a Deontological sense. There are only acts, and all acts are neutral in of themselves.

[Anonymous No.14384559]

>>14378964
Plato btfo you and this guy 2500 years ago you dumb monster poster.

[Anonymous No.14384570]

>>14378926
Based AI.

[Anonymous No.14384702]

>>14382912
My point is that good motives are called good because of the results they can achieve. I think it’s valid to call a will “good” but it makes no sense to say a good will is “good in itself.”
> there thus being a reason for imperatives not liable to any such contingencies.
Just because he says it doesn’t make it so. We could just as easily use the golden rule alone as the foundation for his moral system. It’s totally arbitrary. He wants you to deny consequentialism while coincidentally creating a moral system that can only operate if a moral agent employs consequentialist thinking: “would I want this action to be universal? would that make a better world? would it be good for me?” So his moral system is just rubbish. He hates the possibility that morality is not fixed or universal, so he completely the ignores subjective experience and the consequences and finer details in each moral scenario. It’s all one big cope.

[Anonymous No.14384704]

>>14383384
So should we get rid of the justice system?

[Anonymous No.14385712]

>>14384704
If the kingdom of ends eventuates, yes.

[Anonymous No.14385763]

>>14385712
it's worth noting that in "what is enlightenment" kant viewed we would never reach the kingdom of ends. it's an ideal that we should always be striving for instead

[Anonymous No.14385786]

>>14380901
This post is so good, OP btfo

[Anonymous No.14385945]

>>14384702
Universalizing is merely a test against partiality. Kantian ethics are not based on consequentalist reasoning. You are in goody company though, as Mill made the same mistake.

[Anonymous No.14386007]

>>14385945
>Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law
>will that it should become a universal law
>not based on consequences

[Anonymous No.14386090]

>>14386007
You're confusing actual consequences with a mental test of viability. The actual outcome is irrelevant, what matters is the intention behind the act

[Anonymous No.14386113]

>>14386090
How do I determine if something should be a universal law without gauging the possible consequences?

[Anonymous No.14386171]

>>14386113
Once again, consequentialism is based on the actual consequences post-acting. This is not a concern for Kantian ethics because we're instead making an ethical determination based on the universal viability of a maxim. If you decided to tell a lie, on a simple consequentialist view, and that lie produced some consequentially good outcome in the real world, then there was nothing morally wrong with lying in that circumstance.

On a Kantian account, even if that lie produced some good outcome in that circumstance, you were nonetheless morally in the wrong, because a maxim based on lying is not universally applicable to all rational agents.

[Anonymous No.14386198]

>>14386171
>because a maxim based on lying is not universally applicable to all rational agents.
but doesn’t it depend on the circumstances? If you had a good reason to lie in your specific situation, then it’s not as if you’re willing that everyone should lie, only that people should lie when it’s good, just as it was good for you to lie in your particular scenario. If I kill a man who’s trying to kill my wife, I’m not advocating for all types of killing in all circumstances.
>because a maxim based on lying is not universally applicable to all rational agents.
And why not?

[Anonymous No.14387053]

>>14386198
Kant himself is fine with instances of killing to save another. I'm fairly certain he makes this explicit in the critique of practical reason or the metaphysics of morals.
>but doesn’t it depend on the circumstances? If you had a good reason to lie in your specific situation, then it’s not as if you’re willing that everyone should lie, only that people should lie when it’s good, just as it was good for you to lie in your particular scenario.
The goal for Kant is that we cannot get out of ethical considerations by making exceptions for ourselves. Take Kant's example: lying in order to borrow money that you know you cannot pay back. Kant says this fails the test because it cannot be made into a universal law, you are making an exception for yourself when it is useful, so by extension, you are allowing anyone in such a circumstance to make an exception for themselves too.
>because a maxim based on lying is not universally applicable to all rational agents.
>And why not?
Kant notes if everyone lied about paying back borrowed money, nobody would even be willing to lend money in the first place. It results in a contradiction in the practical world. It would also result in it being totally fine for anyone else to lie about paying back money if you were the one lending it to them. If you give yourself permission to screw over others, then others are permitted to do the same to you.
The reason there is no contradiction in an instance of killing to save someone's life is because the maxim based on this would be something like "I will prevent my wife's murder by any means necessary, in order to save her life."
If we universalized this maxim, no contradiction arises (as far as I can tell), making it morally permissible.

[Anonymous No.14387455]

>>14378926
Just cause Meta-Ethically Deontollogical Morality is necessary doesn't mean that it is directly applicable to phenomenological being.

[Anonymous No.14387632]

>>14385763
That's why Kant said that we are not living in an enlightened age, but an age of enlightenment. He seems to be fairly optimistic about it in his Idea for a Universal History.

[Anonymous No.14388482]

Bump

[Anonymous No.14388489]

>>14378964
retroactively refuted by Glaucon

[Anonymous No.14388492]

>>14380901
Based groundwork poster.

[Anonymous No.14388512]

>>14384546
All acts actually contain a vampiric-reversal or sorts, where whomever is doing the acting is being preyed upon by whatever force has caused him to act. I haven’t even read Nick Land but I know this is exactly how his book goes.

[Anonymous No.14388744]

>>14380901
>t. smug animeposter
>"some words about goodness made me cry"
This one's homosexuality is boundless and profound, perhaps even to the point of Discord trannyhood.

[Anonymous No.14389019]

If you have any concern for yourself or for others then you will want to take into account the effects of your actions on others.