Kantian ethics
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-03-2015, 03:07 PM
RE: Kantian ethics
(21-03-2015 10:27 AM)SunnyD1 Wrote:  
(21-03-2015 12:18 AM)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:  Kant's theory of knowledge is usually praised for its ingenuity and precision; his ethical theory not so much. He was subject to much ridicule, by Nietzsche for sure, and it seems like I recall at least one other....maybe William James? Don't quote me on that. At any rate, I've only read the Critique of Pure Reason, so it would be unfair of me to characterize his ideas, which are unfortunately often misunderstood, but if his followers have encapsulated his thought correctly, that we have an obligation to speak the truth at all times, then I think we can rule this out as patently absurd and unfounded. To paraphrase one early critic of his, who said in response to Kant's admittance that he would not lie to an ax murderer who was looking to kill his best friend if he asked Kant if the friend were hiding in Kant's house, and he in fact was: If you find yourself in a similar situation, don't run to Kant's house! Why would ethics relate to truth regardless of the consequences that relate to the beings involved, when the entire foundation of moral judgments lie, not solely in abstract ideas about value, but in raw, flesh and blood mortal bodies that feel their way along a spectrum of pleasures and pains, seeking a lily pad of temporary relief in a cesspool where everything that hasn't already drowned is drowning? Is it truth for the sake of truth itself or truth for the sake of freedom? If truth is to be esteemed so much, shan't we first esteem the world that makes such truth possible? And might that sometimes mean setting the truth aside for the preservation of things we find in the world to be---in the context of that moment only---more valuable than any principle?

You write like a philosopher. Am I correct in thinking that you are a relativist then? I agree with you by the way... as far as I think I understand what your point is Tongue
Thanks! I'd like to be thought of as a philosopher one day! With regards to moral relativism, I think of myself as more or less a consequentialist... morality is relative to the context of the situation, but there will always be reasonable arguments in preference of one outcome or another... but I find the most sensible approach to moral theory relates to the well-being of the creatures involved, not simply to a principle, such as one of honesty, which again, is only a principle we relish for its utility.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Pickup_shonuff's post
23-03-2015, 11:05 AM
RE: Kantian ethics
(21-03-2015 03:07 PM)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:  
(21-03-2015 10:27 AM)SunnyD1 Wrote:  You write like a philosopher. Am I correct in thinking that you are a relativist then? I agree with you by the way... as far as I think I understand what your point is Tongue
Thanks! I'd like to be thought of as a philosopher one day! With regards to moral relativism, I think of myself as more or less a consequentialist... morality is relative to the context of the situation, but there will always be reasonable arguments in preference of one outcome or another... but I find the most sensible approach to moral theory relates to the well-being of the creatures involved, not simply to a principle, such as one of honesty, which again, is only a principle we relish for its utility.

Nicely put.

Saints live in flames; wise men, next to them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes SunnyD1's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: