/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15095050]

When will /lit/ admit that Kant was right about everything?

[Anonymous No.15095059]

I’ll admit it if I use the categorical imperative even once when making a moral decision. It’s never happened yet.

[Anonymous No.15095067]

>>15095050
>you should let your friend get axe murdered because lying is mean

[Anonymous No.15095083]

I think Kant has one of the most beautiful conceptions of human dignity in all of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.15095089]

>>15095083
What is his conception of human dignity?

[Anonymous No.15095101]

>>15095050
what is the real inspiration of that pic? I mean the statue or painting

[Anonymous No.15095209]

>>15095101
It's uncanny but I can't put my finger on it. Has a very Jesus and Apostles aura so maybe try that

[Anonymous No.15095223]

>>15095101

[Anonymous No.15095239]

>>15095067
He never said that. He actually even allows lying in certain circumstances so long as it builds moral character, like in the case of playing cards, as a poker face builds moral character because one must show control of the self.

>>15095089
>>15095083
Human beings always as ends in themselves and should never be used as mere means. "In the kingdom of ends everything has either a price or a dignity. What has a price can be replaced by something else as its equivalent; what on the other hand is raised above all price and therefore admits of no equivalent has a dignity."

[Anonymous No.15095257]

>>15095067
t. gets his all information on kant from school of life videos

[Anonymous No.15095271]

>>15095059
>>15095067
see >>15095239
Kant solved moral philosophy

[Anonymous No.15095275]

Just admit no one can overcome Hegel

[Anonymous No.15095286]

>>15095050
>Kant: Use your own brain nigger and be responsible for yourself
>nobody:
>4channel niggers: Parrot youtube videos, books, telly, 4channel, school instead of using their own brain

[Anonymous No.15095294]

>>15095286
Doesn't Kant say that intelligence basically amounts to being able to use the faculty of judgement?

[Anonymous No.15095302]

>>15095067
I remember freshman philosophy too

[Anonymous No.15095308]

>>15095067
"For instance, if you have by a lie hindered a man who is even now planning a murder, you are legally responsible for all the consequences. But if you have strictly adhered to the truth, public justice can find no fault with you, be the unforeseen consequence what it may. It is possible that whilst you have honestly answered Yes to the murderer’s question, whether his intended victim is in the house, the latter may have gone out unobserved, and so not have come in the way of the murderer, and the deed therefore have not been done; whereas, if you lied and said he was not in the house, and he had really gone out (though unknown to you) so that the murderer met him as he went, and executed his purpose on him, then you might with justice be accused as the cause of his death. For, if you had spoken the truth as well as you knew it, perhaps the murderer while seeking for his enemy in the house might have been caught by neighbours coming up and the deed been prevented."

>>15095239
The playing cards lie is also acceptable because those that play have entered into an unspoken agreement in which the context allows for lying. Game as a kingdom of laws. Because, lying is a part of the contextual law in this case is your duty to adhere to it.

[Anonymous No.15095377]

How can I become wise like Kant?

[Anonymous No.15095457]

>>15095377
Get some tism serum

[Anonymous No.15095468]

>>15095089
The second formulation of the categorical imperative is:
>So act that you use humanity, as much in your own person as in the person of every other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means.
This is often taken to mean simply never using another as a means to an end. And it does mean that, but the reason why it means more than that is profoundly beautiful (at least to me). You'll note the use of 'humanity' and the conditional 'as much in your own person' isn't referring to a single person, a specific 'human', but in a greater concept of humanity. What Kant means here is a rational autonomous agency uniquely capable of making moral valuation.
>All objects of inclinations have only a conditioned worth; for if the inclinations and the needs grounded on them did not exist, then there object would be without worth. [...] rational beings, by contrast, are called persons, because their nature already marks them out as ends in themselves, i.e. as something that may not be used means, hence to that extent limits all arbitrary choice (and is an object of respect). These are not merely subjective ends whose existence as effect of our action has worth for us; but rather objective ends, i.e. things whose existence is in itself an end, and specifically an end such that no other end can be set in place of it.
By treating others as objects of inclinations i.e. as mere wants, we fundamentally degrade them as beings of contingent worth—that is, of no worth in themselves. But in doing so, we undermine our own humanity, which is the necessarily inviolable source of objective value if objective value is to exist at all. That is why no other end can be set in front of humanity, because that end would lose all value if we were to do so. This is what it means for others to be an object of respect, as they bear the very humanity you do and are inviolable ends in themselves.
We have a fundamental dignity as moral agents capable of treating our own reason as law. And it is this special trait of rational agent that Kant believes, if it were embraced by all, would result in the Kingdom of Ends—an ideal where no one would need any incentive or disincentive but their own reason and recognition of the categorical imperatives of morality. Categorical because it applies to all things unconditionally, imperative because it has an overriding and self-evident priority. When Kant proclaimed the motto of the enlightenment to be-
>Sapere aude! Have courage to use your own understanding!
- this is what he meant: do not live as an object of inclination to another, as a being of contingent worth, but embrace your reason and moral responsibility and finally live life with the full dignity of a human being!
Perhaps this idea doesn't have the same emotional resonance for others (and i did a poor job of expressing myself), but i think it is an extremely beautiful sentiment. Some sections of Kant can even bring me to tears. Dignity is very important to me.

[Anonymous No.15095608]

>>15095377
Remain a virgin, be autistic, never masturbate.

[Anonymous No.15095651]

>>15095468
so it’s just an argument from emotion, got it

[Anonymous No.15095670]

>>15095651
Reason has its limits

[Anonymous No.15095689]

>>15095050
>in an alternate universe, murder and lying are moral
How does Kant cope with this? What reason does he have to believe that certain actions are inherently immoral regardless of consequences? He never actually gives us any reason to be “moral,” or even tell us exactly what is moral and what is not, let alone the contradictions that have already been created from his moral system. He for some reason thinks that reason is the basis of all action, when actually our reason is just a tool subservient to our innate, non-rational desires. I can have all the reason in the world, but without emotion or desire, I have no reason to do anything

[Anonymous No.15095711]

>>15095670
here’s a simple explanation of morality that makes you feel bad, and yet makes the most sense: the most moral action is that which leads to the most preferable experience or sum of experiences. If there exists a life that you would prefer over all others, then you have absolutely no reason to choose any other life, because by definition, you prefer the greatest life.

[Anonymous No.15095723]

>>15095308
>no dude you can’t lie because what if you lie and tell him the wrong place but it’s actually the right place and then everyone blames you?
that’s literally more retarded than the straw man you’re responding to

[Anonymous No.15095725]

>>15095689
Yeah he probably coped with it by not being a fucking retard who would entertain idiotic concepts like that.

[Anonymous No.15095736]

>>15095725
Is morality constant across all species? All genders? Races? Ages? Universes? Why the hell would it? Kant couldn’t explain this no matter how much autistic ranting he does

[Anonymous No.15095933]

>>15095736
300 years of discussion and analysis and you feel you've BTFO Kant with this retarded line of questioning. You answered your own question in your previous post, and then arbitrarily discard reason. Your points are from ignorance and bad faith.

[Anonymous No.15095979]

>>15095933
not an argument

[Anonymous No.15096169]

>>15095723
That's not me responding... those are Kant's own words from his On a Supposed Right to Tell Lies from Benevolent Motives (1797)

[Anonymous No.15096179]

>>15095308
wait a minute...Kant...using consequentialist reasoning?! Blasphemy!

[Anonymous No.15096221]

>>15095736
Morality is not merely an action but mostly a question of what we ought to do. Which is as follows:
>There is … only a single categorical imperative and it is this: Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
To answer your question morality must be constant across all species that are capable of rationality, because rational agents would come to the conclusion that the categorical imperative is the single defining point of moral law. Alien beings must adhere to this law. In Kant's metaphysics of morals he devises a literal a priori metaphysics of morality that is indisputable and water tight. Nothing can critique this masterful autistic creation of pure reason.
>Even if there never have been actions arising from such pure sources, what is at issue here is not whether this or that happened; that, instead, reason by itself and independently of all appearances commands what ought to happen; that, accordingly, actions of which the world has perhaps so far given no example, and whose very practicability might be very much doubted by one who bases everything on experience, are still inflexibly commanded by reason … because … duty … lies, prior to all experience, in the idea of a reason determing the will by means of apriori grounds.
I hope this answers your questions anon.

[Anonymous No.15096244]

>>15095083
>>15095468
adorable anime poster

[Anonymous No.15096268]

>>15096169
I know they’re his words, they’re also retarded

[Anonymous No.15096284]

>>15096221
I’m just not seeing the logic here. Surely his premises and conclusions could be arranged neatly so that it would be clear?
> Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
Is this discoverable by reason? Because I don’t automatically accept it as true. Why SHOULD I follow this maxim?
> morality must be constant across all species that are capable of rationality, because rational agents would come to the conclusion that the categorical imperative is the single defining point of moral law
they could also come to the conclusion that irrationality precedes rationality and that the experience(s) caused by actions determines what is moral and what is not.

[Anonymous No.15096292]

>>15095050
>the number of spatial dimensions

[Anonymous No.15096348]

>>15096284
Not adhering to the categorical imperative is paradoxical
>[o]ne sees at once a contradiction in a system of nature whose law would destroy life by means of the very same feeling that acts so as to stimulate the furtherance of life, and hence could be no existence as a system of nature. Therefore, such a maxim could not possibly hold as a universal law of nature…

[Anonymous No.15096394]

>>15095979
The argument has already been made in this thread and in history. It confuses me when people don't know about a subject and then declare horseshit like you have done. It's level one thinking of "oh that sounds right to me!" When I'm ignorant of something I like to get recommendations or read the history, it's helpful to assume other people, smarter than you, have spent a lot more time thinking about a subject than you have. Look for those peoples arguments and books and read them.
You remind me of conservatives dismissing Marx by saying "but people like private property" like this wasn't addressed and argued with libraries of material for two hundred years.

[Anonymous No.15096415]

>>15096348
where’s the contradiction? Put it in a logical syllogism
>>15096394
the fact that you can’t respond to my questions is telling. You don’t even understand what you’re arguing for. If I open up Kant’s work I’m met with “consequences don’t matter! good feelings don’t matter! Just believe me!” Ridiculous, and everyone going along with it is a fool

[Anonymous No.15096435]

>>15095723
The point is that the universe is a chaotic place and it is unreasonable to derive your morals from the supposed consequences of your actions because it is impossible to know what the consequences will be.

[Anonymous No.15096451]

>>15096435
if consequences don’t matter then your actions don’t matter

[Anonymous No.15096456]

>>15096451
Who are you responding to?

[Anonymous No.15096478]

>>15095050
I mean, he was right given the knowledge that was available to him at the time. I can forgive him for not knowing that non-euclidean geometry is a thing.

[Anonymous No.15096481]

>>15096435
yeah so it’s
>dude u can’t know nuffin XD
but with 1000% more extraneous words - retarded

[Anonymous No.15096487]

>>15095067
Yes.

[Anonymous No.15096493]

>>15096456
it’s impossible to derive your morals without consequences. What is the basis, then, of morality? Even Kant appeals to consequences here >>15095308
(if it’s he who is speaking)

Obviously we cannot know the future. Morality is therefore faith-based. No one knows what perfect morality consists of. If the situation is irrelevant and the consequences do not matter, then Kant could have easily generated a large list of morals for everyone to follow in all situations

[Anonymous No.15096577]

no.

labour theory of value is debunked.
dialectical materialism isn't scientific in any sense of the word or valid (the distinction between base/superstructure is tenuous)
historical materialism is an impossible to test hypothesis, it's a useful lens to look at history but isn't the end of it.

he's still immensely useful as a criticism of capitalism, but we shouldn't be looking at him like a holy grail. just a starting point on how we develop our criticisms and alternatives to capitalism.

[Anonymous No.15096677]

>>15096478
That doesn't disprove kant anyway and is a meme take. The same applies to when the theory of relativity is meant to btfo kant

[Anonymous No.15096726]

>>15095101
It’s a /fit/ meme originally kek >>15095223

[Anonymous No.15096779]

>>15096677
I didn't say it "disproved" him, I said he was right within the limits of what was possible in his time. If he knew about those things, I'm sure he would find a way of factoring them into his thought. learn2read and stop seeing disputations where there are none

[Anonymous No.15096795]

>>15096577
Lmao you know the OP is talking about Kant not Marx right?

[Anonymous No.15098405]

>>15095067
Kant didn't say you can just close the door in his face

[Anonymous No.15098577]

>>15095468
>This is often taken to mean simply never using another as a means to an end. And it does mean that,

It doesn't, Kant's himself says "and never MERELY as a means"

He is not saying that we should NEVER use others as means to our ends, that would be retarded. When I take a taxi I am treating the driver as a means to my own end. This is fine with Kant as long as, at the same time, I also respect the humanity of the taxi driver as someone who has infinite worth. So if our driver uses his own autonomy to offer me the service then everything is fine. The problem would be if he is forced to do that job. In that case I would be treating him ONLY as a means to an end and that goes agains the second formulation of the CI.

[Anonymous No.15098672]

>>15095286
Go back to YouTube you cancerous piece of shit.

[Anonymous No.15098686]

>>15095050
Why is marx so fucking cocksucked on this board? Is this truly the reddit board?

[Anonymous No.15098776]

>>15096493
Deontological morality is far superior to consequential morality. It's what separates us from insectoid p-zombie thinking. We ought not to murder people because the act of murder itself is a flagrant wrong itself, not because the consequences of murder are wrong.

[Anonymous No.15098792]

>>15098686
He's the most influential modern thinker, this is hardly debatable. It's only natural there's going to be a lot of discussion about him.

[Anonymous No.15098794]

>>15095067
if they would befriend (You) they should be axe murdered

[Anonymous No.15098816]

>>15098792
only marxists think this

[Anonymous No.15098822]

>>15098776
>We ought not to murder people because the act of murder itself is a flagrant wrong itself
and we know it’s wrong because of the consequences

[Anonymous No.15098855]

>>15098816
Yeah and in the past century half of the world’s population consisted of Marxists who thought like that.

[Anonymous No.15098905]

>>15098822
But we can only anticipate consequences, and we can not always do so reliably.

[Anonymous No.15098931]

>>15098905
which means that we don’t always know what’s moral. That’s all

[Anonymous No.15098952]

>>15098792
No he's not Kant is probably cited way more than Marx.

[Anonymous No.15099002]

>>15095050
Everybody in this thread once shilled on Kant now your fanboys. You’re all a pack of shameless half wits please fuck off back to cripplechan

[Anonymous No.15099026]

>>15098931
Which means we should shift our view of morality to deontology and recognize whether the actions and motivations we carry are moral themselves. Kant's Categorical Imperative is one such model.

[Anonymous No.15099031]

>>15095651
Why you wouldn't you expect an explanation of why anon thought something is beautiful to be an argument from emotion? If you want the actual reasoning, read kant yourself.

[Anonymous No.15099051]

If not the imperative, as in considering the basis of the moral understanding the other as the other with absolute dignity: what? What is the alternative to kantian morals?

[Anonymous No.15099289]

>>15099026
it only means that we can’t know perfect morality. Now you can take a pragmatic, conservative stance and say that we probably shouldn’t murder, because it usually leads to bad results, but you can’t justify the claim that murder is always, universally bad through reason. You can believe in some sort of theistic deontology through faith, but all this is through the understanding that following these laws actually do benefit you and always bring good consequences. But without God, there’s no good basis for deontological models. You can’t just erase the importance of consequences. The only flaw here is our lack of knowledge and reason. Every action you commit is committed with the faith that it is good for you.

[Anonymous No.15099313]

>>15099031
Kant doesn’t justify his reasoning when it matters the most. He says that the good will is more important than happiness or good experiences, but why is that? He doesn’t explain why, he just writes a long, fluffy passage about the beauty of the good will, as if it’s a diamond that is so obviously more precious than anything else. But again, why exactly is the good will good? Is it not good because of the results it achieves?

[Anonymous No.15099354]

>>15099289
Even if we could know the results of our actions, every time, this would bring us no closer to perfect morality. It could open the door to a dehumanizing and radical bent of utilitarianism. As a demonstration, such a “perfect morality” would sanction the imprisonment and torture of an individual for 50 years so long as it meant a sufficient number of other people did not stub their toes on furniture. Holding the severity and immorality of an act as contingent upon net outcomes leads to this, at its extreme.

The fundamental issue of the aforementioned is that it uses human beings as a means to an end. As beings capable of wielding reason and possessing a degree of dignity, this quality of the act (that such beings are not treated as ends in and of themselves) renders the act immoral.

[Anonymous No.15099419]

>>15099354
>As beings capable of wielding reason and possessing a degree of dignity, this quality of the act (that such beings are not treated as ends in and of themselves) renders the act immoral.
according to your definition of morality

[Anonymous No.15099432]

>>15099419
No, according to God

[Anonymous No.15099444]

>>15099354
collective morality is a spook. If it’s good for you then that’s all that matters. But fortunately most of the time, what’s good for the self is what’s good for others. A wise man wouldn’t harm others because of the risk to himself

[Anonymous No.15099449]

>>15099444
>collective morality is a spook
Your opinion on the matter is a spook

[Anonymous No.15099452]

>>15099432
then all this categorical imperative talk is useless lmao. Just follow God’s word

[Anonymous No.15099466]

>>15099449
if you wanna talk about collective well-being, that’s politics and law

[Anonymous No.15099469]

>>15099452
I’m fuckin around, you should look into the Categorical Imperative though - if not out of personal investment, out of the benefits of reading into something that’s been very influential

[Anonymous No.15099472]

>>15099466
Which are also spooks. Your suggestion is also a spook

[Anonymous No.15099477]

>>15099472
wow you btfo me hard with that one, well played

[Anonymous No.15099480]

>>15095050
he was destroyed by guenon (pbuh)

[Anonymous No.15099538]

>>15099313
Id assume its because happiness and good experiences are but temporary things whereas good will is a bit more permanent to the situation?

[Anonymous No.15099572]

>>15099538
I think all moments of life can be classified as an experience. If you’re healthy and exercise and improve your mind, body, spirit, etc. then your moments will be simply better and more preferable than otherwise. You can have a will to improve yourself but that means nothing until you actually do it.

[Anonymous No.15099583]

>>15099354
you know I liked to think that the actions of recognizing a beings dignity and capability to wield reason coupled with treating other in a manner that you would treat them were the places reversed. Were always a thinking that would be useful should you come across a being of substantially higher awareness that would judge your actions. Not so much unlike being god-fearing?

[Anonymous No.15099618]

>>15095050
>undermines your subjectivist and sensationalist shittery
Nice try kiddo

[Anonymous No.15099779]

>>15095050
kant more like cant LMAO

[Anonymous No.15099879]

>>15099618
Great argument

[Anonymous No.15099915]

[Anonymous No.15099985]

>>15099915
kek

[Anonymous No.15100236]

>>15095083
liberal

[Anonymous No.15100272]

>>15095468
read hegel then marx. kant's moral philosophy is dumb

[Anonymous No.15100286]

>>15095050
why would i when your pic shows 4 philosophers who have critiqued him to kingdom come

[Anonymous No.15100305]

>>15100272
>is dumb
OOF absolutely amazing argument.

[Anonymous No.15100671]

>>15095083
>>15095468
Absolutely transcendental.

[Anonymous No.15101170]

>>15098405
hahahaha

[Anonymous No.15101173]

>>15095050
But I already have.

[Anonymous No.15101749]

>>15098794
Kek