/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18609366]

Kant was objectively and irrefutably correct when he wrote that it was immoral to lie to an axe murderer at your door regarding the whereabouts of his next victim.
>b-but that can't be right! I think lying to murderers is good!
filtered.

[Anonymous No.18609384]

>>18609366

>bu..but he had an axe, he could end up killing the guy ahhhhrggg

[Anonymous No.18609391]

>>18609384

[Anonymous No.18609393]

Autism is a mental illness

[Anonymous No.18609398]

>>18609366
I wonder what Kant would think about this movie's message.

[Anonymous No.18609417]

>>18609393
Nice. Very impressive. Let’s see OP’s response.

[Anonymous No.18609428]

Surely you wouldn't want abetting murderers to be a universal law in case the next victim is you. Why couldn't there be a hierarchy where one good overrules another?

[Anonymous No.18609429]

>>18609393
Cognitive dissonance

[Anonymous No.18609438]

>>18609428
>he still thinks in terms of "but what if x happens?"
Sorry bud, lying is categorically wrong. Don't know what else to tell you :/

[Anonymous No.18609727]

>>18609366
He actually said that you can lie to him in the Metaphysics of Morals, at least in cases where lying can be characterized as self-defense (e.g. when truth is requested from you through violent coercion). You just got bamboozled by a meme that stems from a common misreading of his response to Costant. In that short essay he is specifically talking about political figures (who, of course, according to Kant cannot lie because our freedom, at the level of the doctrine of right and politics, is predicated on their honesty). Fichte also did in share in popularizing this misreading, with his essay on the divine governance of the world.

[Anonymous No.18609753]

>>18609398
Excellent movie. What the preist did was wrong desu

[Anonymous No.18609758]

>>18609753
>What the preist did was wrong desu
yea, I guess Kant would also think so

[Anonymous No.18609785]

>>18609366
But can Kant refute Buddhist upaya and the Parable of the Burning House or the Lost Son?

[Anonymous No.18609814]

>>18609366
>implying what is moral is what is good
It can be both immoral and good, OP. In fact, that's usually the case.

[Anonymous No.18609828]

>>18609438
Just don't tell the aze murderer anything then

[Anonymous No.18609919]

>>18609727
That doesn't solve the issue when you are volunteering it freely and doesn't even make sense because you ought to have initially volunteered it without coercion anyway.

[Anonymous No.18609964]

>>18609366
Kant's ethics is fucking dumb but at least it's not utilitarianism.

[Anonymous No.18610330]

>>18609964
>it hurts my feelings so it's dumb
Like I said, "filtered".

[Anonymous No.18610383]

>>18609366
>t. fatbot
Read 'After Virtue'

[Anonymous No.18610589]

>>18609919
Not really, you don't have a duty to go people and tell them true things, nor you have a duty to respond (truthfully or not) to people demanding true statements from you. This view would turn veridicity into a perfect duty, when in actuality it's an imperfect duty.

[Anonymous No.18610617]

>>18609366
>not telling a murderer where his next victim is would be immoral because LYING BAD
>with enough semantics masturbation I get justify this

And you wonder why the entire extended family laughs at you when you say you study philosophy at the Christmas Dinner

[Anonymous No.18610632]

>>18609366
I can do this shit real quick

>what is moral is what is good, what is productive, efficient, healthy and helpful for humanity
>lying is not inherently immoral because telling everyone all the information they want all the time is mostly inconsequential to the above or can be harmful torwads it

Boom, done extremely quickly and simply, giant forehead autist can seethe if he so desires, it's not like the tard wranglers haven't seen worse

[Anonymous No.18610660]

>>18609727
>He actually said that you can lie to him in the Metaphysics of Morals, at least in cases where lying can be characterized as self-defense
Ok, but that violates his whole categorical imperative as given in Practical Reason. The imperative itself is completely stupid, whether or not Kant himself broke with it in Metaphysics of Morals.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.18610694]

>>18610632
>libtard """ethics"""

[Anonymous No.18610721]

>>18610694
I'm actually ancap

[Anonymous No.18610741]

>>18610632
You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about
>>18610694
send feet pics please

[Anonymous No.18611004]

ethics is spook

[The Real Butterfly No.18611037]

>>18610721
That is a liberal, anon. An anti-state liberal.

>>18610741
He just might.

[Anonymous No.18611105]

>>18609366
>Putting people in direct danger is moral
ok

[Anonymous No.18611139]

>>18609366
It's because Kantians engage in a bunch of special-pleading linguistic tricks to arrive at moral destinations they've already desired they wish to visit. If you give your maxim as "lying to save a life," Kantians insist on minimizing that maxim to "lying" and _then_ applying the universalization criterion of the categorial imperative. By the same logic, "possessing a good heart" fails the universalization criterion because, minimizing to "possessing," if everyone possessed, then we might have a situation in which everyone possesses contraband.
There's also special pleading in the universalization process itself. All kinds of arbitrary logical acrobatics and contortions are permitted when establishing a failed universalization for a maxim a Kantian has already decided shouldn't be permitted, but if you perform the same arbitrary logical acrobatics and contortions to argue against a goodie-goodie Kantian maxim, suddenly -- oh, suddenly! -- you're arguing in bad faith.

[Anonymous No.18611143]

More like Kant reach the top shelf

[Anonymous No.18611146]

>>18611105
Even having kids can put people in danger, you can't account for the actions of all your progeny. That's not a good criticism of any moral system and it's not why Kant's incoherent, self-contradicting system fails.

[Anonymous No.18611156]

>>18609438
But actively informing an Axe murderer where his victim is, is also categorically wrong.
There are no actions without bad for someone, rejecting a girl hurts her feelings, it inflicts pain.

[Anonymous No.18611176]

Reminder Kant also said sex was repugnant as it couldn't satisfy the CI.
>Far from there being any concern for the happiness of the loved one, the lover, in order to satisfy his [sexual] desire and still his [sexual] appetite, may even plunge the loved one into the depths of misery[…][and after having sex] the person is cast aside as one casts away a lemon which has been sucked dry
>Because sexuality is not an inclination which one human being has for another as such, but is an inclination for the sex of another, it is a principle of thedegradation of human nature, in that it gives rise to the preference of one sex to the other, and to the dishonouring of that sex through the satisfaction of desire.

[Anonymous No.18611178]

>>18611139
What zero pussy does to a mf

[Anonymous No.18611210]

>>18609438
sorry bucko, but I think intuitively and inductively
>inb4 Hume
fuck that scottish fucker

[Anonymous No.18611315]

>>18611176
based

[Anonymous No.18611351]

>>18610617
>not telling is the same as lying
yeah I can see why you would find Kant too difficult

[Anonymous No.18611447]

>>18609366
>Kant was objectively and irrefutably correct
"What? You admire the categorical imperative within you? This 'firmness' of your so-called moral judgement? This absoluteness of the feeling, 'here everyone must judge as I do'? Rather admire your selfishness here! And the blindness, pettiness, and simplicity of your selfishness! For it is selfish to consider one's own judgement a universal law, and this selfishness is blind, petty, and simple because it shows that you haven't yet discovered yourself or created for yourself an ideal of your very own - for this could never be someone else's, let alone everyone's, everyone's! No one who judges, 'in this case everyone would have to act like this' has yet taken five steps towards self-knowledge. For he would then know that there neither are nor can be actions that are all the same; that every act ever performed was done in an altogether unique and unrepeatable way, and that this will be equally true of every future act; that all prescriptions of action (even the most inward and subtle rules of all moralities so far) relate only to their rough exterior; that these prescriptions may yield an appearance of sameness, but only just an appearance; that as one observes or recollects any action, it is and remains impenetrable; that our opinions about 'good' and 'noble' and 'great' can never be proven true by our actions because every act is unknowable; that our opinions, valuations, and tables of what is good are certainly some of the most powerful levers in the machinery of our actions, but that in each case, the law of its mechanism is unprovable. Let us therefore limit ourselves to the purification of our opinions and value judgements and to the creation of tables of what is good that are new and all our own: let us stop brooding over the 'moral value of our actions'! " (Nietzsche, Gay Science, #335)

[Anonymous No.18611468]

>>18611351
>more semantics will show him!

[Anonymous No.18611502]

>>18611447
>own judgement
>presupposes individualism and blank slateism
All-Infinite Souls are One. Our hearts see the same Good, while the zeitgeist might be sick, the meta Geist of all Mankind is right. And it moves us up and down morally through history but with time we will find him together and reach the heights.

[Anonymous No.18611507]

>>18611502
>All-Infinite Souls are One
>All-Infinite Souls must think and act like me.
>All-Infinite Souls are me
>"blindness, pettiness, and simplicity of your selfishness"

[Anonymous No.18611522]

>>18611502
>All-Infinite Souls are One. Our hearts see the same Good
>we will find him together and reach the heights.
"The Morality of Victims.—“Enthusiastic sacrifice,” “self-immolation”—these are the catch-words of your morality, and I willingly believe that you, as you say, “mean it honestly”: but I know you better than you know yourselves, if your “honesty” is capable of going arm in arm with such a morality. You look down from the heights of this morality upon that other sober morality which calls for self-control, severity, and obedience; you even go so far as to call it egoistic—and you are indeed frank towards yourselves in saying that it displeases you—it must displease you! For, in sacrificing and immolating yourselves with such enthusiasm, you delight in the intoxication of the thought that you are now one with the powerful being, God or man, to whom you are consecrating yourselves: you revel in the feeling of his power, which is again attested by this sacrifice.
In reality, however, you only appear to sacrifice yourselves; for your imagination turns you into gods and you enjoy yourselves as such. Judged from the point of view of this enjoyment, how poor and feeble must that other “egoistic” morality of obedience, duty, and reason seem to you: it is displeasing to you because in this instance true self-sacrifice and self-surrender are called for, without the victim thinking himself to be transformed into a god, as you do. In a word, you want intoxication and excess, and this morality which you despise takes up a stand against intoxication and excess—no wonder it causes you some displeasure!" (Nietzsche, Dawn, #215)

[Anonymous No.18611580]

Kant was a dumb Christian who inherently and unknowingly thought that "God" was going to sort everything out for the better in the end anyway

[Anonymous No.18611828]

>>18611522
Goddamn, Nietzsche really did made a career out of fighting strawmen

[Anonymous No.18611878]

>>18609366
What was kants stance on exhuming the axe murderers chest with a shotgun shell

[Anonymous No.18612168]

>>18609366
Kan't ethics are ultimately flawed, but not even close how bad some people (mostly hedonist bugmen and roasties) claim them to be.

[Anonymous No.18612176]

>>18609366
misrepresenting reality is the only sin. Kant is correct.

[Anonymous No.18612374]

>>18611178
I agree. Kant died a virgin.

[Anonymous No.18612398]

>>18609366
Kantian ethics are much better if you read him as immoral.

[Anonymous No.18613009]

>>18609366
>people seething in ITT
Obviously you would be more heroic if you stopped the axe murderer without lying or simply refused to answer. Lying to protect someone in immediate danger is an immoral means to a moral end which isn't as noble as alternative actions.

[Anonymous No.18613025]

>>18609366
One can but stand in awe at Kant's immeasurable autism on this one.

[Anonymous No.18613234]

>>18609428
The external consequences that stem from a truth statement said by a person-contained-in-themselves are not relevant to the decision making processes of that person, as the external consequences are not a product of the truth statement, but a product of previous statements or actions of un-truth of the recipient of the consequence, or potentially of the consequence-in-itself.

[Anonymous No.18613246]

>>18609366
ok I haven't read can't is this implying his next victim is hiding and I know where their hiding and tell him to tell save my own skin or am I mistaken.

[Anonymous No.18613258]

>>18609398
>wanting revenge like 20 years later

Is that normal?

[Anonymous No.18613350]

>>18613258
Thanks for a spoiler (not) but I'd say that if trauma was strong enough to burn them for 20 years then why not.

[Anonymous No.18613376]

>>18613246
It's implying that the other person is hiding, you know where they're hiding, and you can either choose to tell the truth to the axe murderer or lie to him. He will not kill you regardless. You could choose to not say anything, but this falls to the Danish fisherman scenario, i.e. there was a Danish fisherman in WWII who was required to lie to German guards about the "goods" (Jews) he was helping escape, and a non-response would get the same reaction as telling the truth.

[Anonymous No.18613498]

>>18609428
>Why couldn't there be a hierarchy where one good overrules another?
There must be as we face this problem often: like patriotism (or loyalty) are both desirable traits, but they can easily come into conflict with honesty for example.
M. Huemer (an academic philosopher) says that all philosophers have been wrong; we are not at the stage yet to formulate general theories but we should still collect evidence on case by case basis.

[Anonymous No.18613540]

>>18609438
Doing wrong is good