Kant wasn't stupid.

[cantata]

Now, I don't want you all to go away thinking that I'm a Kantian. I'm categorically (lulz) not. However, it ticks me off when people misrepresent brilliant thinkers like Kant as making elementary mistakes. For example, someone in another thread seemed to be saying that Kant's categorical imperative ("act only on the maxim such that you can will that it become a universal law") means you should only do things if you want everyone else to do them too. Wrong, people. Very wrong. Kant was not so silly that he couldn't see the obvious and immediate problems with such a thesis.

But this is more of a general thread about the abuse of the work of highly intelligent and insightful people. Disagreeing with someone's conclusions does not give you the right to paint them as having made obvious mistakes. It's important, when you critique someone's argument, to attack the strongest version of their argument, not the weakest. If you think it looks like a great philosopher/ethicist/theologian/scientist missed something obvious, you've probably not grasped their argument properly.

It'd be nice, in this thread, if people could perhaps raise what they consider to be the best arguments of some of the thinkers they think are most egregiously misrepresented, so that we can all be disabused of our misconceptions.

 

[Axioma]

Okay, here's my misconception:

It's immoral to be a baker, because if everyone was a baker, we'd all die because everyone would jus use up all our grain stores to make bread, and then we'd never make any more food ever again and we'd all die.

Tell me how Kant DOESN'T say that.

 

[stan1980]

Attacking the weakest version of an argument... *shakes head* that is a kant's trick!

Okay, here's my misconception:

It's immoral to be a baker, because if everyone was a baker, we'd all die because everyone would jus use up all our grain stores to make bread, and then we'd never make any more food ever again and we'd all die.

Tell me how Kant DOESN'T say that.

That http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=49529967&postcount=12 I guess...

 

[Polycarp_fan]

If Kant's ethics is based on "This is what I should do," where does the thought process come from? You have on the one Darwinian answers and on the other religious.

And, bright intellect has been used just as often to inflict selfishness and horror on one's fellow man as it has beauty and value.

Should we also elevate great thinkers to a level of value above the nine to five man?

 

[cantata]

That http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=49529967&postcount=12 I guess...

Indeed.

Kant is interested in the relevant similarities of different cases. There are different levels of similarity. At one end of the scale, you have the claim that every case is relevantly similar to yours. An example of an act that is at that end of the scale might be rape. Then at the other end of the scale you have the claim that no other cases are relevantly similar. I can't think of any examples in this category except acts of God, since God is so completely different from human beings that it's impossible to universalize his actions.

Most other acts are somewhere in between these two poles. Let's take theft. If you try to put it at one end of the scale - every case is relevantly similar - then you have the problem of those who need to steal from an oppressive ruler to feed their children, for example. If you put it at the other end - my case is completely different from any other case - you are probably guilty of special pleading. So the relevant similarity must fall somewhere in between. Your maxim will be something like "When you are a person in circumstances xyz, you may steal P." You need to then decide whether you're okay with that in every case.

 

[Axioma]

Attacking the weakest version of an argument... *shakes head* that is a kant's trick!



That http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=49529967&postcount=12 I guess...

That doesn't seem very useful to me. I mean, it boils down to the Imperative only working if you ask it the RIGHT questions, with the natural addition of there being tons of WRONG questions you should never ask it.

And of course, the method of forming the right question is a secret known only to a bunch of monky on a high mountain somewhere who purify themselves by fasting under a waterfall for two weeks before striking down a bear with the palm of their hand.

As far as I can see, that makes the Categorical Imperative worthless, because it's only useful if you already know the answer and therefore ask the appropriate questions which lead to the answer you intend to get.

 

[stan1980]

That doesn't seem very useful to me. I mean, it boils down to the Imperative only working if you ask it the RIGHT questions, with the natural addition of there being tons of WRONG questions you should never ask it.

And of course, the method of forming the right question is a secret known only to a bunch of monky on a high mountain somewhere who purify themselves by fasting under a waterfall for two weeks before striking down a bear with the palm of their hand.

As far as I can see, that makes the Categorical Imperative worthless, because it's only useful if you already know the answer and therefore ask the appropriate questions which lead to the answer you intend to get.

Yes, I see what you're saying. I'll await an answer, as I don't have them!

 

[cantata]

That doesn't seem very useful to me. I mean, it boils down to the Imperative only working if you ask it the RIGHT questions, with the natural addition of there being tons of WRONG questions you should never ask it.

And of course, the method of forming the right question is a secret known only to a bunch of monky on a high mountain somewhere who purify themselves by fasting under a waterfall for two weeks before striking down a bear with the palm of their hand.

As far as I can see, that makes the Categorical Imperative worthless, because it's only useful if you already know the answer and therefore ask the appropriate questions which lead to the answer you intend to get.

That's a much more interesting criticism.

First of all, you need to be aware that Kant rules out any maxims which, if universalized, would thwart the purposes of the agent. For example, the categorical imperative tells us that we shouldn't break promises, because if everyone broke promises, we wouldn't be able to make and then break promises in order to achieve our ends, as the institution of promises would not exist.

Secondly, you need to sincerely believe that the maxim you claim to be acting on is appropriate. If I were to suggest the maxim that people called cantata can steal sweets from children, that would clearly be special pleading and probably insincere. Whatever I sincerely take to be relevant similarity is relevant in my decision-making.

Finally, when universalizing, you need to wonder whether you would still be in favour of the maxim if you were any other person in the world, taking into account both material circumstances and differing tastes and ideals.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Motive?

 

[cantata]

Motive?

How Kant derives the categorical imperative is a very big, complicated question. Since this is not a thread for me defending Kantian ethics, but more just a thread to indicate that, at any rate, Kant wasn't a big silly, I don't really want to get into it.

However, despite the fact that Kant was a devout Christian, his ethics was neither reliant on God nor on evolution, but on his beloved 'pure reason'. Essentially he argued that you can only be free if you act according to the categorical imperative, because otherwise you're a slave to desire. And he takes it that we all strive to be free.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Now, I don't want you all to go away thinking that I'm a Kantian. I'm categorically (lulz) not. However, it ticks me off when people misrepresent brilliant thinkers like Kant as making elementary mistakes. For example, someone in another thread seemed to be saying that Kant's categorical imperative ("act only on the maxim such that you can will that it become a universal law") means you should only do things if you want everyone else to do them too. Wrong, people. Very wrong. Kant was not so silly that he couldn't see the obvious and immediate problems with such a thesis.

In my intro ethics class, that is basically what we were told. But the level of comparison matters.

Take a person who is being a preschool teacher. Do they want everyone to be a preschool teacher? No. What about if they want everyone to have a job which they like, which provides them meaning in life, which financially supports them, and which benefits society as a whole? Sounds much better.

To put it simply, find the maxim. The maxim is not the first question, but the second.
After you find it, imagine if everyone else followed that maxim.
Think about if this imagined world would be a good place or not, or if it would be a contradiction.
Act accordingly.

I know this is a bit of a simplification, but I say it is Kant's fault. He may not have been stupid, but he was by far and large over complicated.

 

[morningstar2651]

The conclusion to Kant's response to the inquiring murderer has always felt flawed to me. I'm thinking of dissecting it to find what I think the flawed premise is that leads to his conclusion. I doubt his flaw is in his logic - it's most likely in a premise I don't agree with.

 

[bexcellent]

Now, I don't want you all to go away thinking that I'm a Kantian. I'm categorically (lulz) not. However, it ticks me off when people misrepresent brilliant thinkers like Kant as making elementary mistakes. For example, someone in another thread seemed to be saying that Kant's categorical imperative ("act only on the maxim such that you can will that it become a universal law") means you should only do things if you want everyone else to do them too. Wrong, people. Very wrong. Kant was not so silly that he couldn't see the obvious and immediate problems with such a thesis.

But this is more of a general thread about the abuse of the work of highly intelligent and insightful people. Disagreeing with someone's conclusions does not give you the right to paint them as having made obvious mistakes. It's important, when you critique someone's argument, to attack the strongest version of their argument, not the weakest. If you think it looks like a great philosopher/ethicist/theologian/scientist missed something obvious, you've probably not grasped their argument properly.

It'd be nice, in this thread, if people could perhaps raise what they consider to be the best arguments of some of the thinkers they think are most egregiously misrepresented, so that we can all be disabused of our misconceptions.

Well my dad always told me "kant never could do anything".

 

[keith99]

It isn't limited to Kant by any means. I think it was Calvin who said 'Love God and do what you will'. In context this was an answer given to mature Christians, in todays world it has been taken as a kindergarden answer that means if you 'love God' any evil is permitted.

 

[The Bible Thumper]

Somewhat off-topic, but I always thought Einstein was playing the hypocrite by first being a rabid pacifist, then immediately encouraging the US to build (and use) the atomic bomb.

 

[The Bible Thumper]

It isn't limited to Kant by any means. I think it was Calvin who said 'Love God and do what you will'. In context this was an answer given to mature Christians, in todays world it has been taken as a kindergarden answer that means if you 'love God' any evil is permitted.

That wasn't Calvin; it was Hobbes! Don't you know your philosophers?!

 

[The Bible Thumper]

Well my dad always told me "kant never could do anything".

lulz...