You understand absolutely nothing of Kant. This is ridiculous. And as an Austrian with a few German ancestors, I am very offended by this. Stupid inferior Briton, you are barely better than a Jew. That's what I could say, and judge you purely upon that, but your intellect is that which I question and your intellect clearly is of a vastly inferior category than that of one of the most important and perfect philosophers of all time. And I at least write books upon Philosophy, unlike you, worm.
According to Kant, yes, you would have to tell the truth if Hitler knocked at your door, but then again, Hitler is his own moral agent responsible for his own actions. That said, there's nothing morally wrong with you locking the door and sending the Jews through the secret tunnel system under your house.
Calling Kant's ethics "utopian" misses the point of his theory entirely. One of his assumptions is that it is the will behind an action that makes it good, not its ultimate consequences. Kant could not care less whether our actions result in a utopia or a dystopia so long as the will behind them is good.
What a childish understanding of Kant. It's kind of like a toddler was smart enough to operate a computer and post a youtube video...but couldn't quite pull his little teeney weeney intellect along with him into the digital realm. Just addressing your hypothetical here champ, Kant would of COURSE turn Hitler away. In considering his idea of universality you can't oversimplify things like this. If you were to truly pose this situation to Kant's hypothetical imperative then you'd
have to ask; not if lying in general can be universalized, but instead if lying given these circumstances can be universalized. The distinction is telling indeed. Sure, lying more oft than not would prove unappealing if it was turned upon yourself, but in this Hitler situation you'd effectively be asking "Should it or should it not be a universal moral principal to deny tyrants the information to kill people?"
You can choose not to agree with that moral edict at your leisure, or with Kant's writings entirely, but before you go around prancing atop the grave of one of history's greatest minds, maybe take all of TEN SECONDS to wonder, "Hmm...do I actually understand what this guy is trying to say? Do I or don't I agree with that? Or do I just wanna hear the sound of my own voice?"
A fourteen-year-old saying that Kant is crap...the genius who formulated the *a priori* synthetical reasoning?
Political theory and ethics is always a problem, but the deductive reasoning that he's more popularly known for was revolutionary. Fourteen-years-olds suck.
@BandofSorensons Why do you ask? You should know your history, if not then ask any scholar of philosophy why. Most will tell you he was an inaugoral philosopher, bridging modern and continental philosophy, and setting his name by writing a well-thoughtout and original classic. I just happen to agree.
He hasn't solved the world's problems or anything, but then philosophy was never about that (it is meant to cause problems, and he did that quite well.... which is another way of answering you)
Kant's Ethics are simple and effective. Absolute and Universal and uses both the Categorical and Hypothetical imperative to achieve good through these.
Yes, he does state that you must the the truth (in the example of Hitlor) however, he does say that it is perfectly fine to close the door and lock it and call the police.
It promotes equality more than other ethical theories - Utilitarianism? And because it is based purely on the intrinsic motive, then Evil cannot parade as good.
Your example is alright. Historically speaking, this is not original... many critiques of Kant have pointed out his problems with your argument, even if the specific examples did not include the graphic scenes from the fascist regime.
so Kant doesn't permit lying.. but doesn't he permit hiding from hitler if he knocks at your door? or telling hitler that you're not suppose to tell him or something?
You understand absolutely nothing of Kant. This is ridiculous. And as an Austrian with a few German ancestors, I am very offended by this. Stupid inferior Briton, you are barely better than a Jew. That's what I could say, and judge you purely upon that, but your intellect is that which I question and your intellect clearly is of a vastly inferior category than that of one of the most important and perfect philosophers of all time. And I at least write books upon Philosophy, unlike you, worm.
ganondorf59 4 months ago
According to Kant, yes, you would have to tell the truth if Hitler knocked at your door, but then again, Hitler is his own moral agent responsible for his own actions. That said, there's nothing morally wrong with you locking the door and sending the Jews through the secret tunnel system under your house.
bryan12294 5 months ago
Calling Kant's ethics "utopian" misses the point of his theory entirely. One of his assumptions is that it is the will behind an action that makes it good, not its ultimate consequences. Kant could not care less whether our actions result in a utopia or a dystopia so long as the will behind them is good.
Sewblon 5 months ago
This video was a load of Kant.
votemiles 8 months ago
What a childish understanding of Kant. It's kind of like a toddler was smart enough to operate a computer and post a youtube video...but couldn't quite pull his little teeney weeney intellect along with him into the digital realm. Just addressing your hypothetical here champ, Kant would of COURSE turn Hitler away. In considering his idea of universality you can't oversimplify things like this. If you were to truly pose this situation to Kant's hypothetical imperative then you'd
btp5035 10 months ago
have to ask; not if lying in general can be universalized, but instead if lying given these circumstances can be universalized. The distinction is telling indeed. Sure, lying more oft than not would prove unappealing if it was turned upon yourself, but in this Hitler situation you'd effectively be asking "Should it or should it not be a universal moral principal to deny tyrants the information to kill people?"
btp5035 10 months ago
You can choose not to agree with that moral edict at your leisure, or with Kant's writings entirely, but before you go around prancing atop the grave of one of history's greatest minds, maybe take all of TEN SECONDS to wonder, "Hmm...do I actually understand what this guy is trying to say? Do I or don't I agree with that? Or do I just wanna hear the sound of my own voice?"
btp5035 10 months ago
A fourteen-year-old saying that Kant is crap...the genius who formulated the *a priori* synthetical reasoning?
Political theory and ethics is always a problem, but the deductive reasoning that he's more popularly known for was revolutionary. Fourteen-years-olds suck.
(virginea in acti uter negrum)
Phavonic 1 year ago
@Phavonic Revolutionary to whom and in what specific capacity?
BandofSorensons 1 year ago
@BandofSorensons Why do you ask? You should know your history, if not then ask any scholar of philosophy why. Most will tell you he was an inaugoral philosopher, bridging modern and continental philosophy, and setting his name by writing a well-thoughtout and original classic. I just happen to agree.
He hasn't solved the world's problems or anything, but then philosophy was never about that (it is meant to cause problems, and he did that quite well.... which is another way of answering you)
Phavonic 1 year ago
Kant's Ethics are simple and effective. Absolute and Universal and uses both the Categorical and Hypothetical imperative to achieve good through these.
Yes, he does state that you must the the truth (in the example of Hitlor) however, he does say that it is perfectly fine to close the door and lock it and call the police.
It promotes equality more than other ethical theories - Utilitarianism? And because it is based purely on the intrinsic motive, then Evil cannot parade as good.
Legris99 1 year ago
Your example is alright. Historically speaking, this is not original... many critiques of Kant have pointed out his problems with your argument, even if the specific examples did not include the graphic scenes from the fascist regime.
AlgeKalipso 1 year ago
so Kant doesn't permit lying.. but doesn't he permit hiding from hitler if he knocks at your door? or telling hitler that you're not suppose to tell him or something?
romanticirony 2 years ago
Well this is clearly wrong. Kant owns all. Especially Bentham and his bf John Stuart mill.
Pein740 2 years ago
"4. He is crap..."
OxbowisaMstie 2 years ago
ur not lying
TheMilski 2 years ago
some more sexy voicage there...
Echo4SG 2 years ago
ha, my video has double your views.
anniexx2311 2 years ago