/lit/ - Literature

It's not meant to be easy.

kant has an entire quarter of a book all about how we have duties of beneficence including charity

>>11005984
>Reading Kant
I don't argue with people who waste their time, it's sad ! You know what they say : time is money !

>>11005942
even ancaps can btfo kant's ethics lmao. no idea why anyone took that fag seriously

>>11005974
The author, K(cunt)ant, failed then.

>>11005942
How can you even determine who is poor with the categorial imperative?

>>11006094
Kant is not the author of morality. Blame God.

>>11005942
>Everyone who commits murder is given a death sentence
>People who have received death sentences can't be given death sentences anymore
>Therefore no one can "give murderers death sentences" now
>So it is a moral obligation to never give murderers death sentences

>>11005942
>Kant was Ancap

>>11006110

Minimum basket of goods, probably.

>>11005942
What would Kant think about traps?

>A marriage is an exclusive contract between one man and one woman
>If I marry someone, I cannot will that others marry her as well. In fact, it is not even possible, I cannot even think it, because it is not compatible with the basic notion of marriage
>Therefore me marrying her would be immoral

>>11006670
>the point of being a trap is that you're a male who looks like a female rather than male
>if all males were to become traps, males would normally look like females and you wouldn't look "female rather than male"
>therefore it is not possible to want or even think everyone becoming traps
>therefore it is wrong for you to become a trap

>>11005942
>>11006637
>>11006678
>>11006694
>there are people on this board that genuinely don't understand Kant's categorical imperatives.

>>11005942
>Kant was an ancap, jesus and buddha were communists, mohammed was a feminist, god is a capitalist
what else should we add to the list of "typical things brainlets say about historical figures"?

>>11006716
>Implying that's not exactly how the categorical imperative works

>Maxim of suicide: from self-love I make it my principle to shorten my life when its longer duration threatens more troubles than it promises agreeableness.

>Conclusion: A nature whose law it would be to destroy life by means of the same feeling whose destination is to impel toward the furtherance of life would contradict itself and would therefore not subsist as nature.

>>11005942
I don't think you understand the categorical imperative.

>>11005942
Can someone explain the significance of Kant?
>>11006742
Can you explain the categorical imperative in simple terms? Do you think it's a good concept? Nevermind how influential Kant is, I'm aware that his philosophy heavily influenced subsequent existentialism

>>11006694
>traps are males who look female
>females can be masculine
>all men are traps
>transgenders are just reinforcing traditional gender roles

>>11006760
In it's simplest form the Categorical Imperative is just saying we should act according to certain rules regardless of their outcome. The rule is and end in itself. For example not killing others would be one.

>>11006786
How do you draw lines? The trolley dilemma springs to mind with your particular example of "thou shalt not kill"

>>11006760
>Can someone explain the significance of Kant?
>the significance of Kant?
>of Kant?
lmao.

In regards to the categorical imperative the quotes in
>>11006742
are from him.

Here have Kant's principle of duty:
>I ought never to act in such a way that I could not also will that my maxim should become a universal law.
>E.g. When in need of money I’ll lie to a lender in order to get what I need.
>How would it be if my maxim were a universal law? Then I see at once that it could never hold as a universal law of nature but would necessarily contradict itself. For suppose it to be a universal law that everyone, when he thinks himself in difficulty, should be able to promise whatever he pleases with the purpose of not keeping it, the promise itself would become impossible as well as the end one might have in view of it, since no one would consider that anything was promised to him and would ridicule all such statements as vain pretences.

>>11006786
but what if I were to kill Hitler?

>>11006812
what if Hitler got into art school?

>>11006760
Don't listen to these brainlets. They are doing a classic first year misreading of the CI. Kant formulated it in a few different ways, but the one that's being meme'd here is:
>act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law
The mistake is assuming what he means is "would morality "work" is everyone did that action", which is a very loose reading. What the passage actually implies is closer to "would morality "work" if everyone COULD do that action". It isn't a thought experiment where everyone does the same thing at the same time. Plus, Kant formulates it in more than one way. He also says to act in such a way that you treat everyone as an end-in-itself, and also to act as if the will of every rational being was the legislator of universal law. He says these are all the same rule, simply formulated in different ways (people tend to only meme the well known one). Plus, you can find Kant's response to most meaningful objections if you look around, he wrote plenty of responses to criticism of the CI.

>>11006786
This is NOT the categorical imperative, see >>11006818

>>11006812
That would be wrong in his view as it would break the CI.

>>11006786
I thougt that it was something like ‘’Imagine the act you are about to commit will be committed by everyone in the world’’

for example
I kill someone, imagine if the whole world would kill someone, therefore, it’s bad

I could be wrong tho, correct me if i am

>>11006821
Is the CI concisely simplified to give beginners the gist.

>>11006825
That is pretty much correct

>>11006818
I've always read it as "Would you be happy for this action to be a universal law"

>>11006825
>imagine if I were to take a shit
>the whole world takes a shit
>shit everywhere, we die from unsanitary conditions
>shitting is morally reprehensible
wow, continental """""philosophy""""" is awesome

>>11006807
https://prezi.com/m/qujbmgig2vx3/kant-and-the-trolley-problem/

I by no means claim to be a Kant expert, but I previously wondered what Kant's response to the trolley problem would be, and found this page. there seems to be some pretty interesting and consistent information here, might help you get a better idea.

>>11006842
funny poast

>>11006825
It's not "if the whole world did kill someone" it's "if the whole world could kill someone", it's about universal law not universal action; e.g. it's not immoral to be the sovereign just because everyone else can't be the sovereign at the same time.

>>11006825
>>11006829
No it isn't.
This is precisely the undergrad misreading >>11006818 is somehow somewhat seeing but also failing to realise. Yes the rest are memeing one formulation of the categorical imperative, but if they are all formulations of the same so the memeing is in each case of the same thing.

If by universalise you understand "I would not want to live in a world where everyone fucks their mothers because that would be shitty" then that is 100% wrong, he is talking about undermining the possibility of you even considering that question.

>>11006867
>but if they are all formulations of the same so the memeing is in each case of the same thing
No, they meme the misreading of ONE of the formulations. If you understand the 3 formulations, then their misreadings (and therefore memes) look like total simulacra.

>>11006861
You're focusing on the wrong thing. That it is a law does not disconnect it from actions. It's intentional ethics - and intentions are actions under descriptions, in opposition to consequential ethics. That it is a "nomos" does not severe its relation from the picture of the action being undertaken.

>>11006888
But they are all absolutely correct readings.

>>11006895
Read more Kant. Making a universal law is different than simply doing something, and Kant was explicit about that. This is how the state can morally retain things like the power of legislation and a monopoly on violence.

>>11006264
>morality
Pffft, hahaha

>>11006867
Quality posts. I presume you are a fellow grad student?