Categorical imperative

[Anonymous No.15950528]

How did such a renowned philosopher come up with such an obviously flawed ethical system?

Telling the truth is more important than saving someone's life? And all this talk about duty with no way to prioritize conflicting duties? It's wildly incomplete, even if you look beyond the glaring contradictions.

[Anonymous No.15950538]

Please exhaust yourself describing what you think the categorical imperative is

[Anonymous No.15950748]

>Kant: "I had to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith".

[Anonymous No.15950827]

>>15950528
How about you read about this topic and then come to /lit/ to apologize for your niggerish attitude? https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467-9833.2010.01507.x

[Anonymous No.15950878]

Did you just watch a School of Life video?
Read the second Critique.

[Anonymous No.15950900]

>>15950748
dios mio. could you prove Nietzsche right any more

[Anonymous No.15951283]

Here are the *most important mistakes of Kant:*
*1. The neglect of the meaning of time;*
*2. That he makes no distinction between the reality of the inner and outer life;*
*3. On a theoretical level, he wanted to know nothing of those things possessing a higher reality.*

-Otto Weininger, COLLECTED APHORISMS, NOTEBOOK AND LETTERS TO A FRIEND

[Anonymous No.15951309]

>>15951283
>Shoots himself

[Anonymous No.15951439]

I'm interested in Kant's ethical theories, which I assume are contained in the second Critique, but I found that I have no idea what he's trying to say in the preface because I don't understand his terminology. Should I read the Prolegomena first?

[Anonymous No.15951450]

>>15951439
no, read the groundwork for the metaphysics of morals. then you can try the second critique, and finally the metaphysics of morals for a more specific elucidation of the duties.

[Anonymous No.15951474]

>>15951439
>>15951450
>not starting with the critique of pure reason

[Anonymous No.15951488]

>>15951474
I don't think I stand a chance with the Critique of Pure Reason, considering that even his contemporaries had no idea what he was saying.
>>15951450
Okay, great.

[Anonymous No.15951512]

>>15951488
Just read it niggah, also Hitler quads. Read the prolegama first if you want to and then the first critique. But make sure to do the pre-Kant reading before anything.

It's definitely worth it, and you might as well since there's no point in reading Kant out of order.

[Anonymous No.15951520]

>>15951512
>But make sure to do the pre-Kant reading before anything.
What does that consist of?

[Anonymous No.15951570]

>>15951512
>>15951520
but of course before starting kant he should read leibniz, baumgarten, and hume to have any idea of the climate and problems kant was responding to. and there's no point in attempting kant without a solid grasp of plato, and an even stronger grasp of aristotle, especially his categories and metaphysics. he would also benefit from reading some euclid and newton to get an idea of kant's natural science background.
if you are interested in his ethical theory just read it. interest in more important than background info.

[Anonymous No.15951601]

>>15950528
start with the greeks

[Anonymous No.15951611]

>>15951439
start with the Greeks.

[Anonymous No.15951634]

>>15951520
>What does that consist of?
Anon... you don't know?

Well there are the essential empiricist/rationalist split from the 17th century, and there's probably four main figures, Leibniz, Locke, Wolff, Hume and etc. And then there's of course Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury and Baumgarten who are both also just as necessary.

But then of course Hobbes and Spinoza and of course Descartes who founded modern philosophy and came before any of them are mostly all equally necessary. Though you can read Spinoza way after Kant and not lose anything.

But then of course it comes back to the Greeks, you need to have read Plato and Aristotle and others of that age, as well as the great Shakespeare and such.

[Anonymous No.15951648]

>>15951570
This, most people forget about the age in which Kant was a part of because of his size in importance and effect.

[Anonymous No.15951696]

>>15950528
Quantum physics debunks all prior philosophers

[Anonymous No.15951716]

>>15951570
Okay, so I should go through his Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals?
>>15951611
>>15951634
>>15951648
Gay.

[Anonymous No.15951767]

>>15951716
>>>15951611
>>>15951634 (You)
>>>15951648 (You)
>Gay.
It's literally the truth you spoiled brat.

[Anonymous No.15951780]

>>15951767
How many years do you want me to wait before reading something I'm actually interested in? Are you going to tell me to read the entire Western canon before touching Deleuze?

[Anonymous No.15951807]

>>15951716
yes. you should also understand that part of what makes kant so cool is that he doesn't just ask what's going on, he asks how it is possible to ask what is going on. basically, he is investigating the foundation on which philosophy should be based. that makes his groundwork the preface to the preface to his ethics.

[Immanuel Kant No.15951824]

>>15951780
This retard wants to read my shit before Plato LOL

[Anonymous No.15951938]

>>15950528
Why do you fags forget that Kant had a whole system of philosophy beyond his ethics. His contributions to epistemology and metaphysics are timeless. Best way to spot a pseud is if they ramble on about his ethics.

[Anonymous No.15951954]

>>15951938
>Best way to spot a pseud is if they ramble on about what I don't care about
ok

[Anonymous No.15952015]

>>15950528
idk i think he has an internally consistant moral system.

i think people misinterpret “objective” as “practical” in my subject current context”. so its easy for peabrains to chimp out and think they are smart when they are operating on a severly contingent particular moral framework. given how much time spent on the very abstract and fundamental isues on epistemology and being, it makes complete sense that his moral system is so apondictic and universalist.

[Anonymous No.15952021]

>>15951954
Not really. I care for Kant's ethics. But the first exposure people usually get to Kant is his ethics and it's usually from a shit YouTube channel.

[Anonymous No.15952513]

>>15951938
Because neither of those things matter in the slightest to reality.
The ethics and his ideas of rationality and morality are applicable. All of the rest of that is only interesting if you like to waste time or are interested in writing some saga long critique about a small niggle in his writings.

[Anonymous No.15952610]

>>15952584
No, it doesn't. Not on its own.
Ethics is the most important part of philosophy to the average person. In that they can look at a few systems and figure out how they want to live.

Most other parts are comparatively lacking in applicability to reality.

[Anonymous No.15952647]

>>15952513
How does the exploration of the confines of human reason not matter? And even if we were to agree on your emphasis on "practical applicability", how can Kant's epistemology be separated from his ethics?

[Anonymous No.15952657]

>>15952610
>Ethics is the most important part of philosophy to the average person.
The average person is a bugman

[Anonymous No.15952681]

>>15950528
Stop posting that fake picture. Post his actual painting, retard.

[Anonymous No.15952702]

Critique of Kantian ethics and its “atheism”.

What I claim is: *that the will is always good and that there cannot be any will to evil* or evil will at all.

Evil is renouncement of will and the birth of *instinct out of want*. This is even proven precisely by that the will is always conscious, and instinct unconscious.

-Weininger

[Anonymous No.15952747]

>>15952647
Simple. Have them give it a once over and then realize that telling people that they should work to maximize good while respecting other's autonomy and not using them as 'mere means' for pleasure is more than enough to understand the root of it all. Along with ideas like behave as though what you are doing is going to become universal its a good creed for people to understand and follow.
If they ask why not treat people like tools, then you'd have to explain that to them through real life examples. Or put them on a path towards Nietzsche and turn that sociopathy into something constructive.

[Anonymous No.15952793]

>>15950528
he also straight up invented bizarrely retarded anthropological systems

[Anonymous No.15952870]

>>15952747
Maybe it's because of the medium, but my question was not asking how Kant's ethics can actually be whittled down into soundbites for lays. It was a question towards your previous assertion that Kant's metaphysics and epistemology has no practical application. I was making the point that his ethics are built upon what he establishes in the First Critique. To say that these foundations are useless is akin to saying that he pulled his ethics out of his ass.

Second, you failed to tell me why an emphasis on "reality" should be upheld. Your emphasis seems to go towards how people carry out their daily, mundane lives. To that, I would say that the key credits of Kant go directly towards how we experience this reality. Ultimately, I don't give a fuck if lays don't appreciate the "Copernican Revolution" that Kant brought to philosophy. It does not diminish how important he was to the development of thought and our understanding of reason. If people can't understand why this is important, then let them wallow in their stupidity. Elitism is not wrong in itself.

[Anonymous No.15952895]

>>15951780
>How many years do you want me to wait before reading something I'm actually interested in? Are you going to tell me to read the entire Western canon before touching Deleuze?
Yes you fucking retard it's not that difficult and you can wait to read Deleuze much later in life, but it's not as if you wont be able to read him easily in your twenties going by the order I'm suggesting.

Besides he would be utterly useless to you in an unread state, no one will ever base their system on Deleuze. It's like reading Spinoza first. Just a waste of time, but above all in this case it will likely just lead you astray and bring you to raise questions with no purpose and no grounding in the older texts you read after.

[Anonymous No.15952906]

>>15952513
You have no love of wisdom, and must be cast away from this board to not return.

[Anonymous No.15952909]

>>15952702
If he did say that as you post, then why did he dislike intercourse with women?

[Anonymous No.15952975]

>>15952870
The root is interesting and useful in an academic context, but from an ethics perspective they give some backing to the ideas, but they don't do much in the way of proving them. You can create ethics from any context, like one similar to Kant's but you ignore the rigorous philosophical side as much as is possible and then just focus on developing a system that nets the most material growth while preserving the most autonomy. You don't need that academic side for ethics, because ethics is rooted in materialism and you can use empirical data to back your system up if need be - ex.) these nations that follow this general creed are the most wealthy while having the most freedom according to this, this and this.

>Second, you failed to tell me why an emphasis on "reality" should be upheld.
Reality is all we have. This is what we got and its our job to better it for ourselves and others.
There is no point in developing systems that have no application to reality. We can fund the best and brightest to develop a totally irrelevant to the real world, but logically gorgeous and systemically beautiful branch of metaphysics. But beyond being an exercise in human intelligence, its as I said irrelevant to reality.
Its not about my hatred of elitism, I am being elitist myself. Its about creating a systems that are actually useful to people. Even the most abstract of art is still useful to people, imo. But thats because its still entertainment.
Much of metaphysics is rooted in dealing with logical minutia that serves to prove the brilliance of the thinker over actually doing anything that benefits the world. If you can't develop something that is applicable to reality you are taking the easy way out, in my mind.
>>15952906
Wisdom is applied knowledge. If there is nothing to apply your metaphysics to its not useful for developing wisdom from.

[Anonymous No.15953012]

>>15952975
>Wisdom is applied knowledge. If there is nothing to apply your metaphysics to its not useful for developing wisdom from.
found the utilitarian a*glo

[Anonymous No.15953057]

>>15953012
The only insult there was calling me an anglo.

[Anonymous No.15953268]

>>15952975
>and then just focus on developing a system that nets the most material growth while preserving the most autonomy.
Why should this be emphasised? To justify this to me, you need to engage in that boring syllogistic reasoning that you have tried to mute the value of.
> because ethics is rooted in materialism and you can use empirical data to back your system
You're making assertions again.
>Reality is all we have
You're conflating represented reality with things in themselves. This is why it's important to actually understand the underlying philosophy of whatever ethical system you agree and not rely upon some whittled down SparkNotes for the masses. Kant was hardly a materialist.
>Its not about my hatred of elitism, I am being elitist myself. Its about creating a systems that are actually useful to people.
In playing along with your emphasis on utility, what would you say to people who derive utility from the epistemological groundings of their ethical systems?

[Anonymous No.15953415]

>>15950528
No particular need to "get" Kant's ethics at this particular moment. Modern ethics can be understood with fairly little previous reading through Rawls, Nozick, and MacIntyre. If you wanna go back further, sure Kant, Nietzsche, and Mill will provide more background but their thought ultimately culminates in the three aforementioned.

[Anonymous No.15953425]

>>15953268
>Why should this be emphasised?
Either make the justification that the autonomy that you want is important to maintain, because of the enjoyment that you get from it, and that nations and areas that have the most respect for it are the most well off as shown in pic related. Although economic freedom as decided by that organization is a debateable topic. I could get more data that follows this pattern for something like media freedom, but this has some good presentation.
Essentially its either out of appealing to the common selfishness of people and saying that you should want this so you don't become some slave to a robot, or its appealing to empirical data that supports that autonomy and freedom have net material gains.

>You're making assertions again.
I am, but they're fairly conventional ones. The purpose of ethics in so far as I see it is to make the world function more effectively in that those in it are happier and more able to live their lives without pain. While you could make the claim that ethics is about following a deity's orders or being as close to some moral standard as is possible I feel that that is a greater jump than my claim.
If we assume that ethics is about making lives better, unless you want to take on the difficult job of proving moral superiority, the empirical evidence that you can find is the next best thing. If I can show a correlation and ideally a causation between certain ethical systems and certain quality of life rating then that is as good of an endorsement of a certain system as you'll ever get.

>Kant was hardly a materialist.
I'm aware. But as I said before I'm a practical person first. Represented reality is reality. Things are as they appear to be - the different appearances of things to different people explains differences in beliefs as well. If we'll never be able to find 'true reality' unmolested by humanity's lack of omniscience then its not really something to worry about missing except in an academic context.
That Kant isn't a materialist is no reason for me to not be one.

>In playing along with your emphasis on utility, what would you say to people who derive utility from the epistemological groundings of their ethical systems?
I'd say that they're a rare breed and ask them what they find it to be most applicable to outside of a debate team or a different philosophical context.

[Anonymous No.15953440]

>>15952975
>Wisdom is applied knowledge.
Yeah, and you don't even know what applied applies to in this context correctly.

[Anonymous No.15953443]

>>15952975
>Reality is all we have. This is what we got and its our job to better it for ourselves and others.
I'm the guy who was asking about Kant earlier, but from what I've heard of him, his distinction between noumena and phenomena is interesting. There are aspects of reality that we can perceive with what we believe to be reliable accuracy, but there is always the possibility that there are many things that we simply cannot perceive. This applies to material phenomena as well as to metaphysical phenomena. We cannot perceive God, but that does not mean that He does not exist. We can perceive neither morality nor emotions, but that does not mean that they do not have an existence that goes beyond what neuroscientists and pretend-neuroscientists like Sam Harris might tell us. There is no way of knowing what "reality" is, and we must account for this uncertainty in any philosophical system that we create.

[Anonymous No.15953453]

>>15953425
The Utilitarian movement and its consequences have been a disaster for Western philosophy.

[Anonymous No.15953455]

>>15953425
individualist, materialist drivel

[Anonymous No.15953506]

>>15953455
I've got a sociology background so I lean more towards a semi-collectivist view.
But I am very much a materialist, that I will admit.
>>15953453
Utilitarianism and Kantian ethics are fairly close in age with some strands predating Kantian ethics. To call it a disaster is nearly doing the same for Kant.
Regardless, I am not utilitarian as its objectively true that hooking everyone up to drug machines and giving us controlled virtual reality for our entire lives would lead to the most happiness, but that is also something of a hell for me.

[Anonymous No.15953526]

>>15953506
Another social "scientist" unable to keep himself from viewing his "scientific" discipline as normative rather than descriptive, what a surprise.

[Anonymous No.15953538]

>>15953440
Wisdom is about using your acquired knowledge and more importantly knowing how to use it.
You can pretend that I'm using words wrong as much as you want, but that doesn't really affect my point.
>>15953443
I understand his ideas, and there is a lot of value to them as a way to avoid getting too locked into what we know and discounting everything that we don't know yet.
But there is a difference between acknowledging that there is a good chance we don't understand how the universe works at a fundamental level, and that there are complex aspects of human behavior that we haven't mapped yet, and abandoning reality because there are parts of it that we don't get.
Its important to never lose sight of practicality and the ability for something to be applied to reality, even while acknowledging that there are parts of reality that individuals will never be able to see and interact with.

[Anonymous No.15953568]

>>15950528
I thought it was more of an experimental thing if anything

[Anonymous No.15953594]

>>15953526
Not quite, but good try.
Sociology is about taking observations and documenting them and then making predictions and further observations from them, its by its nature not about establishing anything - just about saying what exists and categorizing it where appropriate.
I believe that after taking large scale observations of people groups in many contexts that thinking in terms of the collective results in far better outcomes when it comes to policy and ethical concerns over individualistic approaches. This is from taking observations and then making predictions about what would result in observations that would express content that I and others view as preferable.
This anti-intellectualism that you are expressing is very funny given that we are on /lit/ of all boards.

Is it a dislike of materialistic empiricism-first views? Or something else?

[Anonymous No.15953626]

>>15952909
Probably because it is unconscious.

[Anonymous No.15953635]

>>15950528
>How did such a renowned philosopher come up with such an obviously flawed ethical system?

Kant's ethics is a grotesque hybrid of his autism (hence the urge to describe morality as a kind of axiomatic system reducible to categorical formulations and maxims) and his Germanism (hence the rigid obsession with "duty"). The clear result is this inhuman, alien and inflexible ethical philosophy that somehow achieves the marvelous feat of having nothing to do with how people actually think and behave.

[Anonymous No.15953703]

>>15953594
Ah, so now expressing the sentiment that science should be strictly descriptive rather than normative is anti-intellectual. I see your dogmatism is deep-seated. I particularly like your non-attempt to disguise your use of science to further what you find "preferable." At least you're honest in your intentions (in this regard).

It's more a dislike of the abuse of a term that carries with it strictly objective and descriptive connotations with it. But I can tell from your dogmatism that that's what you believe you are doing.

[Anonymous No.15953743]

>>15953538
>But there is a difference between acknowledging that there is a good chance we don't understand how the universe works at a fundamental level, and that there are complex aspects of human behavior that we haven't mapped yet, and abandoning reality because there are parts of it that we don't get.
We aren't suggesting that reality be abandoned. We are suggesting that
1. Empirical examination of reality cannot provide us with comprehensive understanding. There are questions that can and should be answered using empirical methods, but there are others, such as claims about the spiritual, about morality, and about values that cannot be subjected to such analysis.
2. The idea that "represented reality is reality" is about as demonstrable as the idea that God exists, and significantly less enlightening.
3. Because questions about values cannot be settled using empirical data, we must use reason, often beginning from axioms that differ from those one might find in the newspapers, to determine what good and bad and right and wrong are.
4. The ideas you keep repeating about "effectiveness," "utility" and so on are unproveable constructs that emerge from axioms we see no reason to accept and that result in an impoverished moral system and myopic view of the world. Alasdair MacIntyre deals with this at length in the early chapters of After Virtue, but basically Utilitarianism can neither distinguish between different kinds of "pleasure" and "happiness," nor provide us with any reasonable method of measuring "pleasure" and "happiness." Utilitarianism is a dead end.

[Anonymous No.15953747]

>>15953635
>that somehow achieves the marvelous feat of having nothing to do with how people actually think and behave
If you think that ethics is about how people think and behave, then you should probably stick to STEM.

[Anonymous No.15953753]

>>15953703
No, the immediate claim that I was being normative over descriptive as a reply and that ostensibly you were saying that science as a whole was the same is anti-intellectualism and simple attacks on science as a system.
I see no reason to hide by intentions. I have beliefs that I think will improve things. And empirical research is the best way to find if those beliefs are actually valuable or if they are the result of my misguided nature and lack of information. The person I trust least in this case is myself.

[Anonymous No.15953810]

>>15950528
>obviously flawed ethical system
Please, enlighten us anon.
Tell us what the categorical imperative is and point to us the "obvious flaws".

By the way, the "you can't lie to a murderer trying to kill someone" is a strawman argument. If you think this is a valid example of the application of the categorical imperative then, please, by all means, show us why.

[Anonymous No.15953820]

>>15953743
This is a very good response that I owe to reply to. But I am falling asleep walking around my house right now.
If this thread is still alive tomorrow I'll get you a good reply. But I can't do so right now.

[Anonymous No.15953853]

>>15953753
you've repeatedly implied the primacy of material well-being in your posts, which is frankly laughable considering your occupation. My "attacks" are on the social "sciences," that is the ones that have repeatedly and consistently failed to live up to the word to the extent that that fact itself is continually and eternally a topic of discussion in those disciplines (though that discussion seems to die when hegemony of a process, framework, or view is established funny enough)

[Anonymous No.15954066]

>>15952906
>intellectual speculation is wisdom
the utter state of secular bourgeois

[Anonymous No.15954662]

>>15953820
Alright, here's to hoping that the thread is still here.

[Anonymous No.15954997]

>>15951474
it's not about ethics

[Anonymous No.15955117]

>>15954066
>Kant is meaningless intellectual speculation
No love of wisdom in you, but neither the bravery of Falstaff either!

>>15954997
And?

[Anonymous No.15955135]

>>15950528
Wait, if they conflict how can you want them both to be universal laws?

[Anonymous No.15955164]

>>15951938
Pretty much. Many philosophers have one point were pseuds continually attack them without much knoweledge

[Anonymous No.15955188]

>>15950827
>reading a feminist academic to understand kant
You're beyond salvation

[Anonymous No.15955195]

>>15954997
>didn't read CoPR

[Anonymous No.15955242]

>>15951439
>reading incomprehensible primary sources of the worst writer in all of philosophy besides Hegel

[Anonymous No.15955288]

>>15950748
>>15950827
>>15950900
>>15951283
>>15951439
>>15951696
>>15952513
>>15952610
>>15952702
>>15952747
>>15952793
>>15952906
>>15952909
>>15952975
>>15953057
>>15953415
>>15953425
>>15953506
>>15953538
>>15953568
>>15953626
>>15953635
>>15955242
>t. never read Kant
Stop posting

[Anonymous No.15955321]

Why do people love chiming in when they only have a basic to no understanding of the subject that is being discussed? This seems to be a very common theme in threads related to philosophy. So weird.

[Anonymous No.15955479]

>>15955321
Because people want to feel smart. It's really that easy.

[Anonymous No.15955659]

>>15955288
At least one of those posts is by someone asking where to start with Kant.

[Anonymous No.15955729]

>>15955659
They should stop posting too because it's already well known you must start with the Greeks and if you refuse that you should need prior knowledge, you start with the First Critique. People who still ask where they should start are only interested in simulating in their mind an interest in Kant without having to go through the effort of pursuing it.

[Anonymous No.15955743]

OP would prefer to live in a world of lies rather than to die for the good of truth.
FAG

[Anonymous No.15955757]

I have a genuine question. What stops me from universalising a maxim like 'steal only if you are starving and need the money'? All three formulations of the categorical imperative would allow me to do this. In general, what stops me willing anything in the form 'do x only if y' where y is some contingency? This surely turns deontology into some form of utilitarianism, since I am forced to consider the consequences.

[Anonymous No.15955766]

>>15955321
Tell me then, when I will a universal law, how do I assess whether it is an acceptable one? By thinking about the hypothetical consequences, right? In this case, how is it any different to utilitarianism.

[Anonymous No.15955981]

>>15955729
What if someone finds Kant engaging, but not Plato?

[Anonymous No.15956032]

>>15955288
>Thinks he has read Kant

[Anonymous No.15957878]

>>15950528
Im jumping straight into Kant without any prior knowledge in philosophy and you cant stop me. I will SUCCEED!