/lit/ - Literature

consider someone who is mentally deranged and thinks it is an acceptable moral idea to murder the shit out of you and your family

>>1378685
A deranged person like that would murder me and my family regardless of moral ideas, don't you think?

>>1378692
but you would have to let him do it

because it rests on false assumptions about rationality.

>>1378694

That's preposterous, you've misunderstood the scenario. If a murderer was to ask you where your family was hiding - in order that he might kill them - then you'd 'have' to tell him where they are, according to the universal maxim that it's wrong to lie. However, you could then attempt to stop him, presuming that 'it is right to lock a door or flee a house in order to save your family from a homicidal maniac'.

>>1378699
OMFG it's PHL101 up in here.

Semi-nostalgia'd, but seriously read Quine.

>>1378701
What does Quine have to do with ethics?

Even if no one ever likes the outcome of an action, he can still claim to be right. Counterwise if everyone forever likes the outcome, it could still be wrong. This is counter intuitive, but actually his main selling point, ashe claims morals are apriori

>>1378719
I know you just Googled it because you were completely ignorant, but seriously, you should actually read Quine.

>>1378699
but wouldn't it be wrong to tell him where they are?

it just kant be applied to society.

>>1378788
*ba dum tss*

bamp

yresyresy

The Kantian moral law, has no content; its only
criterion of morally right action is non-contradictoriness, and t hat proves to be no criterion at all, because it is a criterion which even the most immoral actions are able to satisfy.

3 major problems.

1. How to derive the maxim. Kant tells you you must use the maxim, but never tells you where to derive it from, how broad it needs to be, or where the maxim actually comes from.

In the axe murderer example, this questions "Is my maxim to lie? Or is it to save my children?"

2. P.O.V - Does not take into account Point of View. From which P.O.V do you derive your maxim from? Do you take your own personal? Or perhaps some 3rd person neutral party? Is that even possible?

3. Kant is stupid.

People aren't robots

this applies to you as well onionring

>>1379253
Argument Invalid, Does not compute

>>1379242

He make the observation that the only thing separating man from beast is reason and therefore moral law should only exist within the realm of reason. Whatever consequences or emotional outrage make come out of it, we should always obey them. Where he got the specific laws, I have no idea.

>>1379253
People are essentially robots, especially you D&E

>>1379259

>He make

oh god, kill me now.

>>1379259
Montaigne shits on that whole thing right there.

>>1379253
that's either incoherent or wrong. take your pick.

lol sasuge poop

>>1379261
>>1379309

Robots don't have souls
Also, I like how you guys don't know Leibniz' law

>>1379577
nice trol.

>>1379242
just mentioning that i once read an article by Lessing about lies, where he states that if your aims or ideas behind the lies are moralic acceptable, your lie is moralic acceptable. he also says that, if you can decide between telling the truth or telling a moralic acceptable lie, it's "more worth" to lie

>>1379665
>gif

Is that supposed to be "cute"?
because omfg it is.

>>1379577
>souls
>he apparently studies philosophy
>haha.jpg