What do you think of Kant's categorical imperative?

[labmath2]

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction."

[Three]

He made some progress, but It's not a proof. 

[greekredemption]

He made some progress, but It's not a proof. 

What does this mean?

[jpahmad]

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction."

 

So then I could will that everyone try to kill each other, and then try to kill someone myself, and be morally right according to Kant's theory of ethics?

[labmath2]

So then I could will that everyone try to kill each other, and then try to kill someone myself, and be morally right according to Kant's theory of ethics?

 

You must follow that theory to its logical conclusion for it to be either valid or invalid.

IF everyone tries to kill everyone else, would such a world be possible? You can read the wikipedia post on it to get a sense of how he conceptualizes it.

[Wuzzums]

I never understood something about Kant's categorical imperative. In his philosophy he talks about what makes an action immoral, and implies that an action to be moral must not contradict itself. Then in the formulation of the categorical imperative he says that we should act upon such moral laws in order to be moral. This leaves some leeway. If I'm a sadist and like inflicting pain on people, and if universalized this rule does not contradict itself, then I cannot be moral if I don't inflict pain on people. The NAP must be added there somewhere.

 

Another thing would be his view on lying. He says that lying is immoral, but the phrasing of the categorical imperative states that it is actually moral. If everybody lies, then nobody would believe anybody, but this doesn't contradict the act of lying. Lying is defined as not telling the truth, it has nothing to do with whether or not other people believe the lie or not.

 

It seems to me that Kant's imperative allows for preferences to be moral rules, which ironically is something that contradicts itself.

[jpahmad]

You must follow that theory to its logical conclusion for it to be either valid or invalid.

IF everyone tries to kill everyone else, would such a world be possible? You can read the wikipedia post on it to get a sense of how he conceptualizes it.

 

Hey labmath2 I'm feeling lazy, could you give me the link that concerns this aspect of Kant's philosophy?

[labmath2]

Hey labmath2 I'm feeling lazy, could you give me the link that concerns this aspect of Kant's philosophy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative

 

its not that long, but it takes a while to get through it.

[greekredemption]

I never understood something about Kant's categorical imperative. In his philosophy he talks about what makes an action immoral, and implies that an action to be moral must not contradict itself. Then in the formulation of the categorical imperative he says that we should act upon such moral laws in order to be moral. This leaves some leeway. If I'm a sadist and like inflicting pain on people, and if universalized this rule does not contradict itself, then I cannot be moral if I don't inflict pain on people. The NAP must be added there somewhere.

 

Another thing would be his view on lying. He says that lying is immoral, but the phrasing of the categorical imperative states that it is actually moral. If everybody lies, then nobody would believe anybody, but this doesn't contradict the act of lying. Lying is defined as not telling the truth, it has nothing to do with whether or not other people believe the lie or not.

 

It seems to me that Kant's imperative allows for preferences to be moral rules, which ironically is something that contradicts itself.

I don't think you realise how very similar UPB is to the categorical imperative. You say, "If I'm a sadist..." and so on, but in Kant's conception of the categorical imperative this clearly does result in a contradiction by the very same test Molyneux describes in UPB. 

 

Kant's view on lying is not necessarily binary. So in the classic example of the axe murderer asking somebody the location of his next victim (which that somebody knows), it would run against the categorical imperative to lie - that is, to deceive the murderer by giving the wrong answer, or a half truth - but it would not be immoral not to answer. So you have:

 

Telling the truth = Moral

Saying nothing = Neutral

Deceiving = Immoral

 

Although Kant may well phrase it as "it is immoral to lie" rather than "it is moral to tell the truth". But there is still secret option number 3, which is morally neutral.

 

I understand UPB suffers from this problem of binary morality, but the CI does not.

[Wuzzums]

UPB makes the distinction between preferences and UPB, the phrasing of the categorical imperative doesn't. Being a sadist is in accord with the CI thus it is moral law, and I cannot be moral if I'm not a sadist. Being a sadist in UPB is merely a preference. UPB as I understand it does not say what people should do, it only evaluates if an action is in accord with UPB, whereas the CI clearly states what people should do.

 

I repeat myself, Kant is not clear at all on what he means by lying and deceiving. He seems to equate the two, this is demonstrably wrong. I can lie without deceiving, for example: 

lie = I'm not using words right now.

deceit = vote for me and I'll give you a bunch of free stuff.

Deceit implies lying, but lying doesn't require deceit. A lie is still a lie even if nobody believes it, deceit requires that somebody believes the lie as truth. At least that's how I differentiate the two. So a word in which lying is the norm would just be like a perpetual opposite day.

[greekredemption]

Kant does differentiate between categorical and hypothetical imperatives, which I suppose roughly correspond with the dichotomy you've identified. And honestly I don't think the difference between lies and deception is a huge problem for the CI; anything which involves treating a person as a means rather than an end in herself is, well, not allowed.

[Sal9000]

There are five Categorical Imperatives. The most well known states "Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law."This maxim helps you to distinguish different kind of duties (permissible, non permissible, and universal). Thus, the preferences and UPB are included in this formulation of the Categorical Imperative. You may prefer to drink Earl Grey, but this cannot be a maxim since it fails to be turned into a Natural Law (You cannot conceive a world where everyone has to drink Earl Grey). Nonetheless, it is permissible (you can imagine a world where some persons drink Earl Grey while others have Chai or coffee).

The other formulations of the CI introduce new concepts such as autonomy and an end in itself. For a concise intro see:http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/

Kant does differentiate between categorical and hypothetical imperatives, which I suppose roughly correspond with the dichotomy you've identified.

 

 

It is a little bit more complicated. A Categorical Imperative because it does not depend on any conditions "Answer every E-Mail you get." A Hypothetical Imperative includes conditions "When you get Spam, then you can delete it. Answer every other E-Mail."According to Kant, lying in front of a murderer to save persons you love cannot be a Categorical Imperatives, since there are conditions involved.

[greekredemption]

It is a little bit more complicated. A Categorical Imperative because it does not depend on any conditions "Answer every E-Mail you get." A Hypothetical Imperative includes conditions "When you get Spam, then you can delete it. Answer every other E-Mail."

According to Kant, lying in front of a murderer to save persons you love cannot be a Categorical Imperatives, since there are conditions involved.

Sure, but in terms of differentiating between mere preferences and what Wazzums describes as 'UPB' we can draw a rough comparison with, respectively, hypothetical and categorical imperatives.

 

As you say it is a little more complex than that, in that, for instance,, unlike UPB the CI also allows for duties to oneself as well as to others.

 

But anyway I think it is sufficient to say that Molyneux's philosophy is thoroughly Kantian.

 

As an addendum, lying to a murderer cannot be a categorical imperative for the following reasons:

1) The physical details are irrelevant (i.e. the conditions of the act are not relevant to evaluating its morality, says Kant). "To save my children, I must lie" is a valid hypothetical, but the details outside of the idea of "I must lie" are redundant when considering categoricals.

2) You cannot will that lying be universal law

3) You cannot use the murderer as a means to an end

I'm not saying I think Kant is correct, but this is just how I understand the CI. Admittedly it's been a while since I've read Kant and, being honest, I don't really fancy reading him again...