[ 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: 212 KB, 1200x1200, immanuel-kant-9360144-1-402.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21301163 No.21301163 [Reply] [Original]

>If an ax murderer inquires about the whereabouts of your wife and children, you ought not lie.

>> No.21301181

>>21301163
I won't let you destroy my hard drives, Axe-Wielding Kantian, you'll have to hack through me first.

>> No.21301184

>>21301163
Was Kant... y'know

>> No.21301192

The categories are not real, but that's no reason to dismiss Kant.

>> No.21301214

>>21301163
Was this an actual quote, because it feels like its not.

>> No.21301374

>>21301163
Can I equivocate, tho?

>> No.21301381

>>21301163
the thing nobody brings up about this is that it's in line with the categorical imperative to not answer the axe murderer

>> No.21301472

>>21301163
How do you even apply the categorical imperative here? Every circumstance is totally unique. Lying is obviously good and beneficial in certain circumstances. You could devise a hypothetical in which not lying would result in the extinction of the entire species. So how exactly do you universalize this particular action? Wouldn’t you have to think consequentially to guess what would happen if you lied? But you can’t even know this, as you don’t know the psychology of the ax murderer. The categorical imperative is retarded since you can never really universalize any action.

>> No.21301512

liars should be get the death sentence

>> No.21301565

>>21301472
When you apply the categorical imperative: a) it doesn't matter if an action would be good or beneficial in certain circumstances; b) you aren't trying to universalize the consequences of an action or the action itself (i.e., trying to guess what would happen if you lie), you're only universalizing the maxim, which only includes the action and the intended aim, not the actual consequences themselves. In this case, what you're universalizing is "I will tell a lie in order to save a life." If you want to see how Kant himself univesralizes this and derives a contradiciton, check out the paper "On the supposed right to lie because of philanthropic concerns." I'm not convinced of his success but it is nonetheless revealing as to how Kant responds to what must be the oldest objection to Kantian ethics.

http://bgillette.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/KANTsupposedRightToLie.pdf

>> No.21302338

>>21301163
Correct

>> No.21302386

>>21301163
Yeah you should wrench the axe out of his hand then cleave his skull instead.

>> No.21302405

If a 6 feet tall naked oiled Negroe with ripped muscles trespass your home and inquire on the whereabouts of your wife, who is bathing, you ought not to lie.
- Imannuel Kant

>> No.21302411

>>21301565
>>21302405

Effort posting on /lit/... Not even once

>> No.21302427

>>21302411
Sometimes I like to jest a bit, don't be discouraged from effort posting. I myself may post something relating to OPs topic later

>> No.21302657

Kant: you should never lie!
also Kant: bastard children should be killed.

>> No.21302706

>>21301163
why did no one ever beat the shit out of this retarded goblin

>> No.21302713

>>21302706
lack of refugees in Germany

>> No.21303114

>>21302706
Because no one takes him seriously.

>> No.21303180

>>21302405
You're suppose to fill the negro up with lead not stammer like a little pussy you cuckold.
>>21302657
I agree with both of these things.

>> No.21303239

another example of kant being a dumbass. you really have no excuse to read anyone but Schopenhauer

>> No.21303316

>>21301163
le morality goblin

>> No.21304022

>>21301163
Well you can say "I don't know their whereabouts right now" which is true as you do not know their exact location in this house, so you make a good gesture toward the imperative by not outright lying. - an argument a Cuntian has actually uttered