I'd like to bring up another point, I personally this is would be better if everyone did sell/own guns. Just like everyone having legs mostly balances out everyone's mobility I think that if everyone had "arms" it would defeat the point of giving one person a unfair advantage over others... Making two adversaries with guns no more of a threat to each other an two without them.
@mc1789: well you may be fight but the problem is, you are not really referring to Kant in your argumentation. as we have been over, Orlov's *intentions* are not to kill anyone, and orlov himself never does. so that's two not-guiltys.
now only argument is, that orlov *knows* that his customers will use the guns to kill people, yet how can he *know* when they are their own rational, moral, agents. their own legislators, as kant writes in an essay on enlightenment?
I thought it was a great presentation until the trainwreck of a conclusion completely butchered the use of the first formulation of the categorical imperative. It's disappointing to see such an interesting topic fall flat at the end.
good video, good subject. i disagree with your conclusion, however. an arms dealer is not responsible for what his customers do under kantian ethics, as long as the customers are also humans. this is because all humans are rational entities and therefore rational moral entities onto themselves. if yuri's customers where animals or automatons then the video would be correct but since they are humans, each with a share in the moral law, only the actual shooter would be responsible.
@aspdenmark You are entirely wrong. His conclusion follows Kantian ethics, and especially so when the arms dealers such as Orlov "knows" their merchandise will be used to kill innocent people at least in the long run. It's true his buyers are rational actors as well, but all this means is they are guilty too. Orlov does not get off the hook because of this. In fact, they would have less means to violate others' rights without him, so he may even be worse according to Kant.
I'd like to bring up another point, I personally this is would be better if everyone did sell/own guns. Just like everyone having legs mostly balances out everyone's mobility I think that if everyone had "arms" it would defeat the point of giving one person a unfair advantage over others... Making two adversaries with guns no more of a threat to each other an two without them.
JMSouchak 1 month ago
@mc1789: well you may be fight but the problem is, you are not really referring to Kant in your argumentation. as we have been over, Orlov's *intentions* are not to kill anyone, and orlov himself never does. so that's two not-guiltys.
now only argument is, that orlov *knows* that his customers will use the guns to kill people, yet how can he *know* when they are their own rational, moral, agents. their own legislators, as kant writes in an essay on enlightenment?
the answer is, that he Kan't
aspdenmark 1 year ago 2
I thought it was a great presentation until the trainwreck of a conclusion completely butchered the use of the first formulation of the categorical imperative. It's disappointing to see such an interesting topic fall flat at the end.
e2speedballr 1 year ago
"The first and most important rule of gun-running is, never get shot with your own merchandise."
sexdrugsRnR 1 year ago
good video, good subject. i disagree with your conclusion, however. an arms dealer is not responsible for what his customers do under kantian ethics, as long as the customers are also humans. this is because all humans are rational entities and therefore rational moral entities onto themselves. if yuri's customers where animals or automatons then the video would be correct but since they are humans, each with a share in the moral law, only the actual shooter would be responsible.
aspdenmark 1 year ago
@aspdenmark You are entirely wrong. His conclusion follows Kantian ethics, and especially so when the arms dealers such as Orlov "knows" their merchandise will be used to kill innocent people at least in the long run. It's true his buyers are rational actors as well, but all this means is they are guilty too. Orlov does not get off the hook because of this. In fact, they would have less means to violate others' rights without him, so he may even be worse according to Kant.
mcc1789 1 year ago 2
good video, love philosophy and love this movie. Glad you made it, good job
platonist21 1 year ago