/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11669682]

>What if you have to choose preventing 5 persons from being killeg but you have to kill 1 person?
>KILLING THE ONE GUY JUST AIN'T RIGHT
>How about choosing between killing 1 person and nuking an entire megacity?
>KILLING THE ONE GUY JUST AIN'T RIGHT
>What if you had to sacrifice one guy or else the entire population of the earth including yourself and that one guy will be killed? Would you kill that one guy instead?
>THAT JUST AIN'T RIGHT BRO.
>LIKE CATEGORICALLY

Was Kant a brainlet?

[Anonymous No.11669730]

But at least you get to go to heaven unlike all the other murdering heathens.

[Anonymous No.11669742]

>>11669682
You used the proper words, OP. It ain't right. IThat doesn't even mean Kant wouldn't have done it, but it just ain't right.
I see it this way : of course we would make this choice (let's say, kill one person instead of several), and who cares, and we wouldn't even be assaulted by endless culpability feeling. - But it still ain't right, and we shouldn't try to persuade ourselves that it is.

[Anonymous No.11669746]

Virtue ethics is the only correct moral system

[Anonymous No.11669757]

>>11669746
Does virtue ethics allows me to kill people?

[Anonymous No.11669822]

>>11669742
If something isn't right, then it's false and you wouldn't do it.
If you truly think that what you do is not right, then you don't do it.

[Anonymous No.11669855]

>>11669822
>If something isn't right, then it's false and you wouldn't do it.
shouldn't. Not wouldn't.
>If you truly think that what you do is not right, then you don't do it.
really ? I think not. Not at all. I suspect it's some kind of immense, ancient, almost universal mistake or lie. Actually, if you truly think what you do is not right, you still do it while thinking it's not right, and maybe you'll feel a little guilty. But you still do it. That's how men have always acted. Some even feel immensely guily, full of angst or self-depreciation, in a very legit manner. No surprise. I know very little people being enough dishonest to themselves to regard themselves as people who act really well. Most know they don't, or suspect that they don't, or prefer not to think about it.

[Anonymous No.11669880]

>i started reading about philosophy 5 minutes ago

[Anonymous No.11669887]

>>11669855
Philosophy is aimed at helping you to choose the correct actions. So if your philosophy says you should do one thing, but then you do the other, your philosophy is useless.

[Anonymous No.11669889]

The real problem is people watching Michael Sandel's lecture and talking about it instead of actually reading Kant.

What's it like being a brainlet?

[Anonymous No.11669900]

>>11669742
Fucking retard, you don't understand Kant at all. When the categorical imperative indicates contrariwise then you don't do it. Simple as. There is no even thinking about it past that point

[Anonymous No.11669905]

>>11669887
I'm not sure. It's like saying that, if people don't respect the law, the law itself is useless. The law can very well be right, 'my' philosophy can very well be true. It can be people who are evil, or ignorant, or weak, or something else.
I know quite well how Kant was right on almost everything, but I'm a torturer myself. Who cares ? There's hardly anyone whose life is in adequation or harmony with their ideas. Whenever I think about it, I admit that I'm a bad person - not that my theories are wrong. And I'm pretty sure Kant thought the same.

[Anonymous No.11669911]

>>11669900
I don't even know if you're still thinking about the trolley problem, you sound too angry to be accurate.

[Anonymous No.11669914]

>>11669905
You havent read Kant at all. Shut up you fucking retard

[Anonymous No.11669921]

>>11669880
>>11669889
>I'm too stupid to contribute to the discussion so I will discredit people on the basis that I personally didn't learn anything past the first 5 minutes I spent on something

[Anonymous No.11669926]

>>11669914
yeah... Eichmann did.

[Anonymous No.11669928]

>>11669900
this

[Anonymous No.11669929]

The problem with Kantian ethics is it's inability to deal with evil. As it is unable to motivate action to destroy evil, which there is plenty of, the then the prime task of any kantian is to develop "offensive kantianism". As we ought to follow the categorical imperative, then we ought to ensure the existence of kantians and a future for kantian children. As kant in his theory of justice motivated punitive punishment with the fact that the violator of the act gained an unfair advantage and thus can be punished proportionaly. As violators of the categorical imperative benefits immensly from it and threaten our ability to follow it, isn't then the right thing to do to physicaly remove anyone who advocates for violating it as that's what they rightly deserve? The proper future for kantianism would be a kant-state where any person who violates the CI would be executed and whoose prime directive would be to liberate the world from degeneracy (murder, telling lies, sucide, not paying your taxes and being lazy) through just warfare.
When it comes to the axe murderer, the axe murderer lost his humanity while wishing murder on the innocent and therefor death is the thing which he deserves the most. Don't get surprised when you get trodden while acting like a worm.

[Anonymous No.11669941]

>>11669921
dumb brainlet thinks this is a discussion when the reality is that it's a dumb brainlet spouting uninformed ideas

[Anonymous No.11669943]

>>11669921
>i watch school of life videos and think i'm a philosopher
the internet was a mistake

[Anonymous No.11669944]

How does Kant deal with homosexuality? It should be immoral according to the CI for the same reason murder is immoral (if universalized, the human race ceases to exist)

[Anonymous No.11669947]

>nuking a megacity is bad

[Anonymous No.11669953]

>>11669944
They're degenerate and should not exist

[Anonymous No.11669957]

>>11669900
>>11669928
You imply that Kant has indeed always acted according to categorical imperative, which makes no sense. Unless you just didn't read, it looks like you're mixing up several things.
"this is reasonable" = "this is right" = "this is what I should do"
≠ "what I prefer"
≠ "what I'll actually do"

[Anonymous No.11670237]

>>11669957
There is absolutely no use in developing a system of ethics if you're just gonna do whatever you feel like anyway. Come on dude.

[Anonymous No.11670246]

>>11669957
>"this is what I should do"
>≠ "what I prefer"

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NOOOOOOOO NOOOOOOOO NOOOOOOLOOOOOOOOOOO
NIOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Read Kant before talking shit you absolute fucking mong, Holyfuck why are you pretending you know shit

[Anonymous No.11670258]

>>11669957
>Kant
>"this is what I should do"
>≠ "what I prefer"

[Anonymous No.11670275]

>>11670237
What if the base of your ethical system is doing whatever you want

[Anonymous No.11670337]

>>11670275
Then you are a moral nihilist and a faggot

[Anonymous No.11670400]

>>11670258
>>11670246
dunno if you're juste being dicks or playing on words. When I say "to prefer" I mean to choose something over something else. That's all. Now come on, start bragging about reason, willpower, sensibility, desire, and how long your dick is.

>>11670237
You speak like a Greek, which is perfectly fine

[Anonymous No.11670424]

>>11670400
>When I say "to prefer" I mean to choose something over something else

According to Kant you would never even want to choose the immoral option because reason shows that the moral option IS the preferable one
Anything less is just stupidity

[Anonymous No.11670441]

>>11670424
>According to Kant you would never even want to choose the immoral option
I agree
>because reason shows that the moral option IS the preferable one
let's rather say the right one - would you agree on that ?

[Anonymous No.11670447]

>>11670441
>let's rather say the right one

I don't know what this phrase is meant to mean

[Anonymous No.11670448]

>>11670447
it means : "let's rather say
>>because reason shows that the moral option IS the RIGHT one
instead of
>because reason shows that the moral option IS the preferable one
as you first stated."

[Anonymous No.11670449]

>>11669682
>What if you have to choose preventing 5 persons from being killeg but you have to kill 1 person?
>How about choosing between killing 1 person and nuking an entire megacity?
>What if you had to sacrifice one guy or else the entire population of the earth including yourself and that one guy will be killed? Would you kill that one guy instead?
Ask for volunteers? If no one volunteers, then I guess they'll all have to die and it's what they wanted.

Why the fuck do the people making up these bullshit arbitrary moral dilemmas never think about you just, you know, ASKING?

[Anonymous No.11670451]

>>11670448
No it isn't. Oh my fucking God, go read Kant you insufferable fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.11670464]

>>11670451
Yeah I'll read an english translation to make sure he uses the verb "to prefer" in the same exact meaning as you did.

[Anonymous No.11670477]

>>11669682
Kant is pretty entry level my dude

[Anonymous No.11670542]

>>11670449
What if that isn't an option?

[Anonymous No.11670580]

>>11670542
If you can't ask them? Well, I suppose the whole analogy is already stupid enough anyway that we can add that little bit of retardation on top of it.

If you can't ask anyone else, then ask yourself - would you allow your own life to be taken under the same circumstances? Would you be all right with sacrificing your own life for the greater good? If so, you should probably just kill yourself, for you know you are ready to die and do not know the same of these other people. If taking your own life doesn't count for this clusterfuck of a moral dilemma, then perhaps you can make some assumptions on those you would have to kill for this, and pick the ones you deem the most likely to be okay with it.

If on the other hand you would not be willing to sacrifice your own life to save five people, or a megacity, or the world... then I guess you're all fucked.

Honestly, it kind of amuses me how someone can come up with some utterly unrealistic scenario like this, then claim to have lolDESTROYED and BTFOd the whole moral system. Like you people knew shit.

[Anonymous No.11670700]

>>11670464
It has nothing to do with the language its to do with your 105 IQ

[Anonymous No.11670772]

>>11670580
>I solve moral dilemmas by claiming they don't exist

[Anonymous No.11670800]

>>11670700
you should indeed have sex and learn some german.

[Anonymous No.11670805]

>>11670800
>you should indeed have sex and learn some german.

[Anonymous No.11670817]

>>11670800
I'm literally German (I also have a girlfriend)

[Anonymous No.11670845]

>>11670817
Ahahahahah BTFO

[Anonymous No.11670856]

>>11670772
I think I managed it well enough even assuming it did exist, did I not?