Kant's moral philosophy is shit

[Anonymous No.11100829]

How can one man be absolutely correct about epistemology/metaphysics and yet completely shit the bed on moral philosophy?

I guess autists don't do so well when human affairs are in question...

[Anonymous No.11100841]

Not an argument

[Anonymous No.11100865]

Go be a utilitarian lever puller somewhere else.

[Anonymous No.11100882]

>>11100829
Because he realized that morality was an absolute spook which can't really be founded on pure reason, but he was too much of a good citizen to tell the plain truth and undermine morality and society.

[Anonymous No.11100899]

>>11100841
You cannot determinate the scope of a maxim, therefore the categorical imperative is retarded.

There is no criteria for how much circunstance you can put on your maxim, rendering the universalization principle useless.

[Anonymous No.11100906]

>>11100829
>How can one man be absolutely correct about epistemology/metaphysics and yet completely shit the bed on moral philosophy?
I have always asked myself the same question.
How can someone write a top-tier book like critique of pure reason and lose his sanity for practical reason

[Anonymous No.11100914]

>>11100899
be more concrete. what exactly puts you off in example?

[Anonymous No.11100923]

THE MURDERER AT MY DOOR SHALL BE HEARING OF THIS

[Anonymous No.11100955]

>>11100829
>How can one man be absolutely correct about metaphysics

that's where you're wrong kiddo

[Anonymous No.11100991]

>>11100914
As we all know lying is a no no for Kant, because if you make an universal natural law the maxim that you should lie there would be a contradiction (in the sense that truth and falsity wouldn't make sense anymore).

But there's nothing stopping me from my maxim to be "you should lie in such and such conditions". Few examples:

You should lie if it's friday.
You should lie if you're wearing a hat.
You should lie if your lying would save a life.

That's what I mean when I say there's no criteria for how much circunstance you can put on a maxim.

[Anonymous No.11101001]

>>11100955
>durr durr it's true because shankara said so
wow, thanks rene

[Anonymous No.11101012]

>>11100829
I agree, but it is even possible to conceive of a different morality in light of his system?

[Anonymous No.11101051]

>>11100991
Morality can only be founded on a priori principles and pure reason alone. Fridays are knowable only a posteriori and thus aren't of moral value.

[Anonymous No.11101057]

>lying cannot be a maxim
>our society consists of lying and cheating pricks

[Anonymous No.11101080]

>>11101051
Is this guy trolling? I can't tell

[Anonymous No.11101114]

>>11101001
>implying Shankara's wrong

[Anonymous No.11101122]

>>11101080
Have you even read "The groundwork to the metaphysics of morals"?

[Anonymous No.11101150]

>>11101051
>a priori
kek

[Anonymous No.11101169]

>>11101114
he is, and there is a massive debate in Vedanta about the status of Maya which Shankara and Guadapada don't agree on and which other intelligent commentators have noted is basically unresolvable. Tantra just ignores the distinction and makes of it a generative principle for spontaneous instantiation of the divine within the mundane.

[Anonymous No.11101176]

>>11101122
My modern ethics class was literally 6 months on that book...

[Anonymous No.11101197]

>>11100829
It really does seem to just beg the question and recovers some basic Platonic concepts.

[Anonymous No.11101207]

>>11101176
Did even you read the introduction?

[Anonymous No.11101215]

How do Americans pronounce Kant anyway? The correct pronunciation would be indistinguishable from cunt.

[Anonymous No.11101233]

>>11101215
Kah-nt or Cant.

[Anonymous No.11101234]

>>11101207
You're confusing metaethics with ethics. How can ethics be completely a priori you retarded shitlord?

[Anonymous No.11101277]

>>11101234
How much money did you blow on a ethics course you didn't understand?

[Anonymous No.11101281]

>>11100991
Every act happens in a specific time and place which it depends on and never repeats so you make an universal law which is applied only once in every particular act which you reason right. So there are as many universal moral rules as there are moral acts. Kant ultimately comes down to muh feels.

[Anonymous No.11101327]

>>11101277
Literally 0. I'm not american.

If you're the guy that posted >>11101051 you should kill yourself to be honest.

[Anonymous No.11101364]

>Thread on Kant
>'How can ethics be a priori'
>'I spent 6 months on the Groundwork'

Night night /lit/. Hopefully you're better in the morning.

[Anonymous No.11101590]

is it dumb that i think the categorical imperative is a good rule of thumb even if i don't think it is obligatory?

[Anonymous No.11102558]

>>11100829
>How can one man be absolutely correct about epistemology/metaphysics
Because he's not...?

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/kant,_immanuel.html

[Anonymous No.11102570]

>>11102558
this is the dumbest thing i've ever read, the first four don't even attempt to attack kant's arguments and they just write butthurt strawmen instead

[Anonymous No.11102594]

>>11100991
I feel like you didn't read thoroughly, because he addresses this concern exactly. The specific (i.e. empirical) circumstances of an act cannot factor in a moral judgment, since the basis of the determination of the will (i.e. the basis upon which you are making the judgment about what you want) is subjective. The only way to have a completely moral judgment is to found this judgment in the form of the law itself, which is universality.

>>11102558
>Even apart from the fact that Kant’s theory of the “categories” as the source of man’s concepts was a preposterous invention, his argument amounted to a negation, not only of man’s consciousness, but of any consciousness, of consciousness as such. His argument, in essence, ran as follows: man is limited to a consciousness of a specific nature, which perceives by specific means and no others, therefore, his consciousness is not valid; man is blind, because he has eyes—deaf, because he has ears—deluded, because he has a mind—and the things he perceives do not exist, because he perceives them.
Stop posting this shit. If Rand had read Kant she wouldn't have written such retarded nonsense. It only passes in America for philosophy because fewer than one in one hundred Americans have themselves bothered to read Kant.

[Anonymous No.11102625]

>>11100829
Well, it's not inspiring

[Anonymous No.11102668]

Maybe his moral philosophy is shit because his metaphysics is shit. Just like everyone after Descartes, he rejects Aristotelian teleology but he never gives a good reason for it. They're more interested in coming up with alternatives but everything becomes a mess because there's no such thing as meaning without purpose. This is why modern philosophy is in the sorry state it is.

[Anonymous No.11102762]

>>11102668
>Just like everyone after Descartes, he rejects Aristotelian teleology
You say that like it's a bad thing.

[Anonymous No.11103062]

>>11102668
>he rejects Aristotelian teleology but he never gives a good reason for it
>t. never read Hume

[Anonymous No.11103070]

>>11103062
He's just as guilty of not justifying his rejection

[Anonymous No.11103787]

Bump

[Anonymous No.11104050]

>>11102668
this