[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 226 KB, 500x603, kantgoblin.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15881567 No.15881567 [Reply] [Original]

>Immanuel Kant claims that if an axe murderer asks you where your best friend is, obviously intending to murder her when he finds her, you should tell the axe murderer the full truth, because lying is wrong. This is effective at showing how moral a person you are – no one would ever doubt your commitment to honesty after that – but it’s sure not a very good result for your friend.

>> No.15881571

>>15881567
I don't know who said that but it's fucking retarded and an intentionally poor misreading of Kant.

>> No.15881583

>>15881571
no its exactly what kant wants

>> No.15881587

>>15881567
But if we apply ethics of care (feminist ethics) instead, then it becomes moral to lie because you care about your friend

>> No.15881589

>>15881567
Pretty big strawman. Try reading the "Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals" before reading the CoPR

>> No.15881596

>>15881571
>kant is a valid philosopher
*does kantian philosophy*
>no, not like that!

>> No.15881608

>>15881596
>kantian philosophy
>falls for the oldest strawman in the book
lol

>> No.15881618

In Kant's lectures on ethics he says it's ethical even to lie to your neighbors about going on vacation just so they don't fuck with you for a few days. That quote is full of shit

>> No.15881639

>>15881618
why neighbors gotta be like that?

>> No.15881658

>>15881639
"why a kantian gotta be like that?" would be the correct question, my nigga.

>> No.15881668

>>15881567
Let us put forth the maxim of the alternative, that is to say
>You may lie if it be in your interest or that of some other person to do so
Is this an ethically acceptable maxim? Everyone would say that obviously it is not. But if the maxim
>You should not lie even if it be in your interest to do so
is also not acceptable, what is the reason?

Is it because it would be against your interests? But we have already shown that no one will grant the first maxim as a universal law, that is to say, no one will accept, unconditionally, that it should be considered morally appropriate to lie whenever it be in your interest. And yet, seemingly everyone will, when they consider the situation of the axe murderer, feel that it is immediately obvious that to tell the truth would be reproachable, so why do they not declare the maxim
>You may lie if it be in your interest to do so
to be ethical?

But let us say that it is not one's interests that one has in mind. What other reason might there by to deceive another person with an intent to do violence, if not to look after one's interests?

>> No.15881673

>>15881596
OK I'm honestly a little pissed here. Take the weekend, read the Groundwork. You'll actually learn something for once in your life you fucking weasel, and you'll see how utterly asinine this post and your fuck shit reply to me are.

>> No.15882742

Or you could just outright refuse to say, therefore not lying and also not disclosing the information

>> No.15882752

>>15881596
>its impossible to misread someone
If you didn't get it then you didn't get it, brainlet. Not everyone is cut out to be a thinker.

>> No.15882755

>>15881567
>No.

>> No.15882782

>>15881567
>Immanuel Kant claims that if an axe murderer asks you where your best friend is, obviously intending to murder her when he finds her, you should tell the axe murderer the full truth, because lying is wrong.
The final form of autism

>> No.15882794

>>15881587
That's always seemed like a wishy-washy utilitarianism to me. I guess it's a more personal utilitarianism (if the greater good required you to kill your loved ones, you wouldn't do it because you care for them).

>> No.15882960

>>15881571
>>15881589
>>15881608
How is it a straw an?

>> No.15883131

>>15882794
Yeah, I'm not a big fan of it either. You're right that it sounds like utilitarianism; it can even give the same answer to the trolley problem. Ethics of care is like letting the 5 people die because the 1 other person is your mom (lol).

On the other hand, if you used virtue ethics, then you could make the same argument for lying by saying that honesty is a golden mean between only telling lies and only telling the truth. You would still be acting virtuously if you lied about your friend

>>15882960
Whereas Kant here is understood to say that lying is always wrong, you could theoretically take the categorical imperative in a different direction to say that a lie said in specific circumstances where another person's life or dignity is at risk of being lost would only be a "white" lie compared to other kinds of lies; and, therefore, "white" lies can always be permissible but not other kinds of lies. But since this is a stringent definition I invite you to refute it

>> No.15883181

The Kantian thing to do in this case would be to not tell the killer anything at all, even at risk of death. It's in this very scenario that one intuits the autonomy of morality - when faced with a choice to either be moral or die, and noticing that you have a choice.

>> No.15883198

>>15883131
White lies aren't permissible. Say you tell the murderer that your neighbor went two streets down. Say the neighbor, in fact, unbeknownst to you, actually did go two streets down. You're complicit now. The difference between doing something moral or not in this case is whether you could be held accountable for your action. If you choose to say nothing at all to the killer then you're not complicit

>> No.15883302

>>15883181
>>15883198
Fair point!

>> No.15883346

>>15883181
you are taking Kant to extremes he clearly disavows for human action in the Groundwork. While he does gran the human with rationality, he poses the case of other rational beings, and states that the human could not follow this formal way of functioning, that only an extremley rational being could follow (something akin to angels or saints). Kant was not as dumb as this stupid argument makes him seem.

>> No.15883353

>>15881567
Why couldn't you just say "I'm not going to tell you where she is because I don't want you to murder her."? Is that ethical?

>> No.15883361

>>15883353
yes, this would probably be what Kant think is the right thing to do. not formally the rationally moral thing to do, because we humans just don't function in an extremley formal and rational way.

>> No.15883402

bumping for good ol' discussion about Kant

>> No.15883429

You just refuse to answer, retard.

>> No.15883438

you kill the murderer and piss on kants grave

>> No.15883452

>>15883429
yes, I bet you have read the "Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals". Unironically, your answer would be like something Kant would say.

>> No.15884725

>>15881567
you tell the axe murderer kants address

>> No.15885970
File: 32 KB, 483x600, 1579868315156.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15885970

>mfw I tell the axe murderer your location

>> No.15886004

>>15881567
>obviously intending
It’d only be polite to ask, first. Just to double check, since you can. It’s the only chance you’ll get.

>> No.15886189

The true Kantian upon hearing of the man's intentions magdumps a 1911 into his face as a good friend protects his comrades. If this morality was used as a universal law axe murderers will be extinct by next October.

>> No.15886859

>>15881567
I would teleport behind the axe murderer and say
>The truth is...you're going to die by my hand hombre
Then I'd slice open his throat to prove that I'm not a liar, and a truly moral person.

>> No.15887319
File: 253 KB, 1009x825, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15887319

Here's the context of the quote.
https://web.archive.org/web/20161115073538/http://raikoth.net/consequentialism.html

>> No.15887395

>>15887319
>Get to third paragraph
>"A person might get [glasses] not because ey is very rich
>"ey"
>Last paragraph
>"demonstrating eir morality"
Also
>Sociobiology
>Opposing condoms is a "horrendous decision"
>Blatantly misconstruing moral imperatives
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHH

>> No.15887415
File: 486 KB, 1781x1270, nintchdbpict000358303886-e1507214179325.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15887415

My viewpoint is that I own a firearm and can therefore project whatever moral or ethical standpoint I want onto a situation.

Can midwits even refute the philosophy of the firearm?

>> No.15887491

>>15881567
My friends are strapped and would welcome the ax murderer to bleed out on their lawn

>> No.15887519

>>15881567
No, he says you shouldn't lie so that means you can say nothing.
You absolute retard

>> No.15887560

>>15881587
You can still make immoral decisions under the context of caring deeply about someone. Compassion tends to be good but can lead to horrible outcomes, as it is conditional.

>> No.15887585

>>15882742
Absolutely. A murderer has no right to force you to tell him where someone is he is intending to kill. Even the thought of universalizing the maxim of that act is ridiculous.

>> No.15887821

>>15887491

Based philosopher of the firearm.

>> No.15888120

>>15881571
You retard, this was literally written to Kant in a letter as a question and he answered
>yes, tell the truth

>> No.15888159

>>15888120
>op doesn't post the letter
>retarded anon doesn't post the letter either
How's it like being mentally challenged?

>> No.15888918

>>15883346
Read Critique of Practical Reason. Yes, it's impossible for humans to ever gain total autonomy so long as they exist in nature. But the example Kant gives is of a man who is forced to lie against an innocent man in court by the king. He becomes aware of his moral autonomy over his natural life by the fact that he has a choice to either do the right thing or die (regardless of what he chooses, he becomes aware of the possibility)