/lit/ - Literature

So, as you both know, Kant's categorical imperative is supposed to generate duties by it's form alone, by its law-like state as a manifestation of reason.
However, what I am saying is that the categorical imperative itself is a mere structure for circularity.
The reason being that the maxims are at the mercy of background content (i called these values, but that was only capturing a part of what i meant, i can see now that was confusing). by content i mean all assumptions about all material grounds and all other human ends.These are assumptions are multitudinous and can range from "property ought to exist" and "life ought to be lived" to purely practical assumptions such as "when something occurs with less success, then it is rendered void"
these we can call the background values, or background content, to be more precise.
now, i said before that you can plug in any maxim into the categorical imperative (which is a mere universilizability mechanism, ie. it's true nature is a simple "appliclation to all agents") and it will successfully universilize, UNLESS you still hold to these background assumptions, to this background content.
Take "killing is permitted" upon universilization (keep in mind that this is THE ONLY THING that the categorical imperative does) of the maxim, everyone dies. so what? where is the contradiction? it is not in the law, because the only thing that happened is that we applied "killing" to everyone and now everyone is dead. it is only through the background assumption that "life ought to be lived" that we have a "contradiction".
Let's take the maxim "Lying is permitted". Everyone lies to each and then the anon says that the concept of lying becomes null since everyone expects it. But is lying, as a concept, really becoming null? With everyone lying to each other, each time they open their mouth, the speech-act of "lying" is perfectly safe. Ie. lying does not depend on the other person (whether or not he believes it), cont.

satan, you've always seemed pretty decent, who are you? im guessing a college student in his early 20s studying philosophy or literature?

continued:
(whether or not he believes it), it depends solely on whether the person is speaking a false hood.So where is the contradiction here? All we did was apply lying to the whole world and now everyone is lying to each other. The concept of lying does not come into a contradiction. It only comes to a contradiction once the background content of "when something becomes less efficient, it becomes then void" is assumed. Same for stealing. It is only by assuming that "property ought to exist" that we get a contradiction. once we remove that, there is no contradiction. it's just people taking shit.

hence the circularity of the whole system. we have this background content on the edges of the categorical imperative, waiting to cancel out anything which does not cohere with them.

We can universilize anything, provided we remove background content

>>3783991

yeah i recently graduated, soon to start law school

>>3783991

>decent

You must have a high threshold for shitposting edgy assholes.

>>3784004
ah, neat, i like reading what you have to say. i hope the guy you're arguing with steps up to this thread

>>3784011

true, thanks ace

i try to keep a balance between "edgy shitposting" and actual discussion/contribution. it really all depends on how i'm feeling/who "i" am/what i'm on, etc

>>3784035
I have more money than you

Sat, I'm 21 y.o. But feel like 14 y.o. schoolboy.
The more I read the less I understand. I'm afraid to have an opinion. Da faq I need to do to become more confident like you?

ITT people with 110 IQs acting like its 140

>>3784035
>it really all depends on how i'm feeling/who "i" am/what i'm on, etc

dont do dumb carles shit, tia

i was hoping this wouldn't just fizzle out like that

>>3784161
disregard whenever you're in the wrong and brush it away as a glitch of reality

i dont get it
what is this thread about?

stan doesn't use capital letters yet he types a shitload of those itt

did i miss some exciting thread/debate between stan and the nyu guy

Kant says we are obliged to act morally good, by some kind of duty that is somehow present in all of us. He didn't say (or know?) where this duty comes from, only that it exist and that we act according to it.

The categorical imperative is a way of testing whether or not a maxim is morally good or not. It's a test to see if it strokes with what our duty tells us.

This duty is what you call background content. I don't see the problem.

Not the guys you're talking to, btw.

>>3785154

i'm not talking about the albeit already vague (and inherently affect related concept of duty). I'm talking about the imperative in it's generation of laws, I'm talking about the mechanism in which it renders contradiction, and I'm saying that it is not the categorical imperative, in virtue of its form, which does the work, but rather this background content.
In essence, the cat imp here is just a method of producing tautologies (by already assuming background content and by confirming maxims through circular reference)

>>3784259

just trying to continue a discussion. I had to leave in the middle, and was hoping they were online so that we can finish. I'll bump this thread occasionally to see if they're on

>>3784178
lel, just because you don't understand something doesnt give you right to have a period on my thread ace, if you have something relevant to add, do so, if not fuck off .
and my I.Q is 139, which doesn't fucking mean anything anyway, now back to your corner, ctrlatldel

Btw, in reference to the bullet 13 year Old wittgenstein bit,

I had this Maxim : I always hold the door for other people.
Upon universilization, no one goes through any doors, we have what is called "a contradiction in conception".
Does this then mean that my maxim is morally wrong?
It would be insane to say yes. and nyu anon bit the bullet on this and said that "hrhrhr everything is morally wrong anyway"

the obvious choice here would be that it is the imperative which is flawed; its method of abstraction being too demanding.

If that other Kant anon wants to address this, it would be helpful. Do you find "I always hold the door for other people." to be morally wrong?

The categorical imperative is not an altogether useless moral artifice

For instance, suppose we applied it to a mother considering whether or not to have an abortion due to financial constraints.

Or even better, suppose we applied it to a young woman who flagrantly abuses alcohol and birth control throughout her university years, delays becoming pregnant until she's in her late 30's, and then needs heavy fertility treatments.

I think of the Cat Imp as a moral club you can bash people over the head with.

'And let us only suppose, madam, that every woman behaved as you do. What then becomes of our species, eh?'

etc. etc.

>>3784161
>confident
idk ace, read more, lift heavy weights, grow balls, etc.


if you're having difficulty understanding something, it means you're not ready for it. start with a comparatively easier read. as you progress, your reading comprehension will improve. the thing to NOT do would be to give up.

>>3785324

It's clearly not useless if "what becomes of our species" is something which you already care about. it validates your background moral content and makes them tyrannical in nature, transforming them from inclination to commandment. Tautology is, after all, "logically airtight", though meaningless.

>>3785341

All moralities are tyrannical in nature.

'Do this and this, refrain from doing this, and you will be (happy/healthy/honest/blessed/virtuous); otherwise....'

etc. etc.

>>3785291
>i'm not talking about the albeit already vague (and inherently affect related concept of duty). I'm talking about the imperative in it's generation of laws, I'm talking about the mechanism in which it renders contradiction, and I'm saying that it is not the categorical imperative, in virtue of its form, which does the work, but rather this background content.
>In essence, the cat imp here is just a method of producing tautologies (by already assuming background content and by confirming maxims through circular reference)
But this is taking the imperative out of its context. You have to take Kant's entire view of morals into account if you want to criticize a single aspect of it.

>>3785354

what are you talking about bud?
I'm taking the categorical imperative and analyzing its function, and its structure. upon analysis i find that it does nothing but reinforce prior commitments, instead of generating laws by virtue of its nature alone (which is what kant believed).
what context do you need me to address?

>>3785352
i know, but some are more than others,
awesome pic btw

>>3785367
>reinforce prior commitments

restate* (but with more umph) is more apt to what is going on

>>3785367
>what are you talking about bud? [...]
You're completely disregarding his idea of duty, which I mentioned in my first post, that dictates the moral code to which we adhere. Kant isn't specific but he does mention this. He believed morality comes from this duty, not from the imperative itself. This is why taking the duty into consideration is important, because on its own the imperative is teleological in nature (because it focuses on what happens if everyone follows maxim x) but with the duty included it becomes deontological and the morality is derived from the person again instead of from the end result.

The cat imp is a way of testing a maxim, rather than dictating it. Keyword: testing. It's not meant to dictate or create anything.

At least, that's what I got from it.

>>3785402
>imperative
hmm I agree with you, Kant's ideas actually do show that crime is intrinsically wrong. After all wronging a fellow man is instrinsically unethical. But the deal is ethics are just trash without backbone.

Furthermore I can't seriously see how someone could use ethics as a way to hide from their intrinsically cowardly nature. Ethics only enables self victimizers to rally into groups to behave like a moral person. Ethics is nothing more than a cowards device to hide from reality.

Now their may be principles and of course God is not necessary for a moral system to exist but that doesn't dismiss the fact that morality and ethics are just bullshit together created by someone to fuck over the followers.

A good system is one without idiocy but since that system is hard to find let's just embrace reality for once aye and quit trying to troll in a literature thread?

>>3785402

I perfectly agree with you dude, i realize that kant needed some motivator to get us to even consider morality in the first place. and since he was cautious about not lumping that motivator with Humean affects, he came up with DUTY. that we have a duty to be moral.
Even though I could talk about Duty and show how its inherently a function of Passion and Not Reason, I don't want to do that. I merely want to consider the imperative itself. By "testing" a maxim, it is gearing it up for dictation. And I'm saying that the test is nothing by a function of circularity, it is a test of coherence with already assumed background content. The relevant "test" is thus not really done by the imperative, as much as it is done by this background content. the imperative is just a muddled structure for circularity, a producer of tautologies.

we all just assume what is good and bad, what ought to exist beforehand. the imperative isn't doing any meaningful work in this regard.

>>3785414
You're suggesting we just do whatever we want, including going on killing and raping sprees, just so we can 'embrace reality'?

>>3785416
It does work and serve its purpose from a practical standpoint. It's self-evident that killing is wrong (and we can test this, but ofcourse that's superfluous) but for more complicated issues this method of testing can come in handy. It's just a tool. You can use any hard object to hit a nail into a wooden plank, but you'd prefer to use a hammer.
I think we've reached a dead end in this discussion though, because ultimately we agree with each other and should we disagree, it's on a microscopic level in the tiniest details.
And yes this 'duty' cannot be explained by reason, which is why Kant remains silent. It's simply there, it seems.

>>3785416

and before you say that the imperative isn't supposed to create or dictate anything, you should know that kantians believe that the imperative is literally the sole method for deciding what is good and bad. we are to do the test before each of our actions, and the imperative is supposed to tell us, in virtue of its form ALONE, what is good and bad. but it does not do this, as it heavily depends on background content.

>>3785439
The kantians are wrong, then.

>>3785439

>kantians

Schopenhauer didn't buy it, and he's pretty well the only 'Kantian' of any consequence.

Of course, his compassion-based ethics is debatable (this art thou, etc.) But he found the cat imp wholly insubstantial.

See 'The Two Fundamental Problems of Ethics' and related texts

>>3785432
>it's on a microscopic level in the tiniest details.

hmm, i dont think so,
seems to me that the categorical imperative is the single most important aspect of kant's deontology. if this turns out to be a mere structure for circularity, we run into big problems.

>It's simply there, it seems.

fishy as fuck though, to just say that it's simply there, by some what? divine transmigration? is there a platonic form of duty? we're slowly veering into /x/ with this...

>>3785465

there's nothing wrong with /x/

>>3783983
I'll this thread for later, I come to lit for these kind of discussions.

When I get time, i might respond with some posts as well. Need to check some books first as well.

>>3785432
No, I'm embracing the idea that we don't behave like idiots and quit assuming that no god exists or whatever or that a god exists.

If you think a god exists then start searching for that god and if you think a god doesn't exist then say this is what I believe.

You in no way have to be religious to be moral and i don't understand why you choose to associate yourself with so many low lives who are using atheism as a way to escape their daily life problems. Its just like if everyone was a christian theist and we all decided to use God as an excuse to quit working. After a while we would begin to encounter a fairly retarded society. So quit worrying about atheism and theology, live your life dude.

>>3785367
shove it up your ass. That's right take Nietszche and shove it up your god damn mother fucking ass.

>>3785501

Get out.

>>3785482
Sure there is, the occult threads are dominated by Crowley worshipping Thelemite tripfags. The most annoying of the occult community besides the dark n edgy qlipphotic crowd. Do what thou wilt with a hole in the wall, I say.

>>3785494

What the fuck are you talking about? Who the fuck brought atheism or religion into this? What are you on about?

>>3785302

Well, that's a really tricky case.
There surely must be something wrong in formulation. If there isn't, then that maxim is morally wrong. The categorical imperative does not make mistakes.

>>3785856

I think his whole point was that saying that it's morally wrong would be to bite the bullet.
Think about it. You're saying that holding the door for other people is morally wrong. That's absurd.

>>3783992
some corrections:

These assumptions are multitudinous*
Take "killing is permitted". Upon universilization*...

Also for those who don't know the categorical imperative is "act as though you would will your maxim to become universal law". thus, every maxim you have for a particular action, you are to universalize it by making it a model of behavior for everyone.
To picture the mechanism in a abstract terms, visualize distributor god which takes your act and multiplies it by the population of the world. this is what the categorical imperative does. kantians say that once this happens, we get contradiction with some maxims. keep in mind that we are not talking about hypothetical imperatives, which take into account the person's intention and desires. the cat. imp. is not supposed to take into account any background content (such as desires, intentions, material grounds and end, other principles, etc). it is supposed to generate moral truth by its form alone.

to reiterate: we have the maxim of "i kill people". the categorical imperative wills this to become universal law and everyone dies. we are supposed here to get a contradiction purely through conception, without taking into account desires, ends, principles, etc.
We do not have such a contradiction. Everyone dies and that is it. It is only through our assumption that "life ought to be lived" that we have a contradiction.
Take "lying is permitted". random kant douche said that upon universilization, the concept of lying would become obsolete because everyone would expect it and thus lying would be unsuccessful.This is plainly false. Keep in mind what the imperative does. It applies lying to every agent in the world. The result: everyone lying to everyone. Now, obviously people would catch on and lying would become unsuccessful. But does this mean that then people aren't lying anymore when they tell untruths? No. the concept of lying does not depend on other people believing the lie.

>>3785898

continued:

Thus there is no contradiction in the conception of lying. It is only through the background assumption that "once something becomes unsuccessful, the concept is rendered void" that we get a contradiction. also keep in mind that they are guilty here of a semantic overlay, because practical considerations (lies not working as well as they used to because people caught on) do not bear on the actual analytical designation of a concept (ie. that lying means "not telling the truth")

rel fucking bannermen likes even knightly n aw stanislav tae take en ye ol fucking kantians ay the like fer a proper fucking gander o'er like the philsosophical fields, no fer nowt that the fucking cunts been out ay order fer fucking years nae decades nae fucking centuries on fuckin end right. too fucking right the cunt humes delt wi dey cunts before they even fucking spawned. nae kantian cunt can hold ay pool cue to save his fucking life, nae bather the consequences cause they cunts tae shitbrained tae have a wee fucking gander. rather have ay few peeves than gaf around wi the likes ay them ey

>>3785898
'sup

>>3785898
>>3785903

2deep4me

Someone please put Stan in his place. I barely understand this stuff but I can tell you that him coming to the conclusion that killing is ok is definitely not ok.

>>3785909
top lel, typical pleb wif nae skullnub

>>3785909
Morality can't be true or false so how could someone prove him wrong? Killing is ok for some people. It's wrong for others. You can't prove one interpretation is correct in the abstract like this.

I'm curious why OP finds moral systems interesting despite the fact that they are so subjective and even at times so detached from the reality of the situations they are meant to account for.

>>3785909
'lel i fking anr this is u stan nae fecking bather ti hide likes

fecking samdfag ae thew gofs likes
toppin

>>3785906

3 fuckin proper mate, thick gadge dinnae stand a fuckin chance. right ootay thair fuckin minds ken

>>3785909
hrhrhr im not saying killing is ok i'm just saying that the categorical imperative doesnt do anything with regard to the moral status of killing. basically the concept of killing is up in the air ace if you have to kill someone though make it yourself and end this pitiful charade thanks for playing
>>3785907
fuckin radge

>>3785921

sup mate, widnay fuckin leev oot the possibility that ye goat fuckin tricked ay? fuckin lelerrcosterr intae the ninth circle of lel ya cunt

>>3785933

wisnae fuckin me tho. i proamise

>>3785919

i find it interesting because i personally wish to snuff out the last remnants of this anachronistic mode of thinking. relics of a dying age, these kantians

>>3785955
So you're sort of doing the same thing Dawkins does when he makes books and videos about creationists?

>>3785926
>3 fuckin proper mate, thick gadge dinnae stand a fuckin chance. right ootay thair fuckin minds ken
nae fucking cunt in the history ay square fecking squares e'er square the fucks up like he wan ay sund fucking gettin i rite once ay fer facking all ken? nae can't staggir beyond yon fucking stutter lef bank ay the fuckin wall likes, cunt

>>3785933
nae fucking wide wi dey reference cunt i'll deck yer before ye get a half pint down yer fucking john smittens n aw. nae fuckin trick her, nae try te bather us wi likes the emulation ay tricks, aw cunts naw ye ken me but ye cant trick a goat likes the goat tricks yu, ken?

tep fecking lel dem cross the pond gadgies like no even fucking take a gander likes, wee cunt wi the likes a yew gots teh puddlefuck squares up te a continental lassie or a dozen ken?

Loll stan do u go to peterhouse? We might have discussed this before if so.

>>3785974
.this fucking pray tae fucking chrise

>>3785154

Yeah exactly. I augment Kantian ethics with Gewirthian ethics, and they make an unbeatable pair.

>>3785291

>IQ 139

Hey me too! Although my verbal IQ is 180+, according to some guy I saw when I was a kid. We had to estimate it, since it ceiling'd out on the test where I scored 139.

>>3786015
Seems like everyone has a 140 IQ. Or people with lower and higher just never mention it.

>>3785966

dinnae fuckin tell me i cannae trick ye mate. jist cus ah goat like, a fuckin tripcode an aw, disnae fuckin mean that ye ken trick a sound cunt like ays intae thinkin that i dinnae fuckin kno its yew ya radge.

nd ye mate, them cunts winsae fuckin redy fir me penetratin intellectual phallus likes, ah rise up ootay fuckin ground tae fuckin collect the essence of past phillosopher's n ah fuckin mixinae wit me white lass lines ay fuckin rail them cunts up mah fuckin nostrils, pillin thair fuckin souls ootay thair fuckin bodies but.

>>3785974
whats a peterhouse

>>3786015

leave off the IQ ace, i'd like you to tackle this one >>3785898, if you would por favor

>>3785926
>hrhrhr im not saying killing is ok i'm just saying that the categorical imperative doesnt do anything with regard to the moral status of killing. basically the concept of killing is up in the air ace if you have to kill someone though make it yourself and end this pitiful charade thanks for playing

Fuck you you piece of shit. Fuck your garbgae philosophy and your bullshit amoralist preaching. I hope you burn in hell.

>>3786095

Well, and I said that Kant and Gewirth should be taken together. If they are, it's all good.

>>3785909

Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it's wrong, tard.

And I just want to try to clarify the categorical imperative, if I can, by summarizing it into a few sentences.

Categorical Imperative on an action/behavior: if you would not have it be okay in any situation, time, place, etc., then it's not okay.

For instance, the Buddhists have created a categorical imperative about killing. They do not make a distinction (which lead to gray areas) between killing and murder: To be responsible for the death of any sentient, living being, is wrong, in any situation, time, place, etc. Thus, for the Buddhists, not killing is a categorical imperative.

Am I on track?

>>3786154

>Am i on the right track?

NOPE!

>>3786153

is that your final answer?

>>3786095
no fer nowt ey? sall good then ye cunt. happy nightime gander likes gaffer

>>3786173

Correct me, then.

>>3786184

Read the thread.

>>3786181

night then ya radge

>>3786153

really though, is that your final answer?

captcha that yepedo

>>3786180

what is your obsession with meredith viera stan?

http://fuuka.warosu.org/lit/thread/S3578367#p3578559

>>3786199

Don't bother. They've lost this one. He won't give you a better answer than that. As I said in that past Stirner thread, Kantians are as protective of their beliefs as religious nuts. Which is why they evade.

>>3783983
what exactly is the story behind that painting?

>>3786970
Some celebrity gossip about Pete Doherty, a britpop musician drug addict.

Stan usually listens to hip hop so I wouldn't be surprised to hear he enjoys the music that best represents the cultural degeneracy of the UK.

>>3787080

hip hop is probably my least favorite genre of those that i listen to

>>3786970
it's a jane kelly painting

>>3787409
Comrade of the Cranial Growth, how does one into post-structuralism? It's been suggested it would be to my liking.

>>3787080
>cultural degeneracy of the UK.
that's like saying your tumour has a lump on its tit

Who'd have thought little old me, the OP of the Stirner thread, could have caused such a kerfuffle?

I feel proud.

>>3787496
Also Satan is dicking all over the Kantians ITT and you're all too stuck up your own arses to admit it.