Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2020 May 4

= May 4 =

Kantian ethics
I'm trying to get my head around Kantian ethics and the Categorical imperative. I have a couple of questions:
 * 1) First off, just to confirm I am correctly interpreting things: Am I correct in interpreting the essence of the Categorical imperative is not "Don't do that, because if everyone did that, things would be terrible" (and that that is more like a form of Rule utilitarianism), but rather "Don't do that, because it would be physically or logically impossible for everyone to do that"?
 * 2) Kant argued that all sorts of things that are commonly seen as good are not inherently and absolutely good, because they can be used for bad ends (e.g. courage, loyalty, etc).  The only thing that is universally good is a good will - this is always good and maintains its moral value even when it fails to achieve its moral intentions.  This strikes me as a rather odd proposition, given that "good will" can also lead to or justify doing all sorts of bad things.  What, therefore, was what was Kant's justification for this? Iapetus (talk) 17:46, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No. The essence of Kant's Categorical imperative is neither of the justifications suggested because it is a deontological ethic defined by rules, not by consequences, virtue or pragmatism.
 * Yes. Though it strikes you as an odd proposition, Kant asserts that good will is an absolute moral necessity with no guarantee or regard to whether it achieves good ends. DroneB (talk) 19:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, but from reading the articles here (and elsewhere), it looked to me as though he derives these rules on the basis of whether they could logically be universalised. E.g. "stealing is wrong, because if everyone was allowed to steal, there would no property rights, but if there were no property rights, there could be no such thing as stealing".  (That's what I meant by "physically or logically impossible for everyone to do that").  Is that not right? Iapetus (talk) 09:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As to Q.1, one should distinguish between what the Categorical imperative (CI) prescribes in terms of how you should behave, and the justification given by Kant for the rule. Several philosophers have observed that viewed as a behavioural prescription, the CI is not that different from the Golden Rule (GR). Kant thought his rational justification for the CI was better than a presumed one for the GR (the latter being something like, "if you mistreat others expect to have it coming"). I for one don't interpret the GR as being justified by the fear of retribution; I see embracing the principle more as a choice of how you want to stand in life. Yes, I don't want to be mistreated, but I don't want anybody to be mistreated. Kant argued that the CI was what it was because it was the only possible rational choice for a moral principle. There are people who seriously argue that on moral grounds humanity should choose to cease to exist. This appears to agree perfectly with Kant's CI; I wonder what he would have thought of this. --Lambiam 22:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not to mention what he would have thought of being called "a real pissant." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * By the professors Bruce at the University of Woolamaloo. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 03:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * All Aussie kids, at least those of my generation, know that it's spelled "double-u double-o double-l double-o m double-o l double-o": Woolloomooloo. :) If they were naming it now, I suspect it would be spelled Wulumulu, à la Uluru (not Oolooroo). But there's a Melbourne suburb called Coolaroo, not Kuluru. Crazy country. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  08:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I hear Chris Eubank has written a book on Ethics. If it's successful he intends to follow it up with a book on Kent. DuncanHill (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What's this about Kintian ethics? He was rather Verbal, and a favorite of the Keyser... -- Jayron 32 19:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)