Log in

View Full Version : Immanuel Kant



sunfarstar
29th July 2009, 02:51
Do you like it?:cool:

Rosa Lichtenstein
7th August 2009, 02:40
What 'it'?

Nwoye
10th August 2009, 13:16
ummm yes?

hugsandmarxism
10th August 2009, 14:30
I spent my University Intro to Ethics course arguing against Kant from a Utilitarian perspective, though that isn't to say I don't like his work (I quite enjoyed a fair bit of it). My professor at the time was part of some deontological society which worships all things Kant, and I wanted to make things interesting, so I decided to put on my Bentham hat and played a little devil's advocate. The notion of respecting the will as the base for moral action is interesting, though there certainly are those cases where we can't let that principle be our only guiding star... the bigger context in which actions take place needs to be considered for one to call their actions "moral."

(If I've oversimplified or done anything else to offend I apologize. I'm rather rusty on this topic ;))

Nwoye
10th August 2009, 17:58
I spent my University Intro to Ethics course arguing against Kant from a Utilitarian perspective, though that isn't to say I don't like his work (I quite enjoyed a fair bit of it). My professor at the time was part of some deontological society which worships all things Kant, and I wanted to make things interesting, so I decided to put on my Bentham hat and played a little devil's advocate. The notion of respecting the will as the base for moral action is interesting, though there certainly are those cases where we can't let that principle be our only guiding star... the bigger context in which actions take place needs to be considered for one to call their actions "moral."

(If I've oversimplified or done anything else to offend I apologize. I'm rather rusty on this topic ;))
I like your analysis, but I don't see how we can even call ourselves egalitarians without calling on the Kantian "kingdom of ends" scenario to guide our ethical decisions. I think the entire concept of equality among persons is based on the assumption that I recognize your goals (ends) as no more valuable or desirable than mine, and that to use you as a means to my ends would be undermining such goals. As such, I give equal credence to both of our desires. If you do the same, then we arrive at the "kingdom of ends" Kant talked about.