Kant

[Wenty]

Lets debate some philosophy.

Kant's philosophy is hugely influential and widespread. Lets stick to his morals, such as the categorical imperative. Geist likes his german philosophy, any views?

[Knowledge 6 6 6]

"Dare to think!" - Immanuel Kant, and slogan for the Enlightenment era.

I really like Kant for promoting individual thought and exploration, instead of sort've going with the means-to-an-end mentality common amidst most 9-5ers that I know.

I like Kant a lot, have yet to read any of his books published, but I heard his first book was written when he was 19...woah, that's young.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 29 2004, 07:46 PM
Lets debate some philosophy.

Kant's philosophy is hugely influential and widespread. Lets stick to his morals, such as the categorical imperative. Geist likes his german philosophy, any views?
I genuinely agree with the categorical imperative. Which is why ALOT of you guys Piss me off. Trying to reverse subjegation after the revolution. OPRESSION IS OPRESSION PEOPLE. Yes the working class needs to rise up, but that doesn't warrant opressing the former ruling class.

[Trissy]

Well to draw on some thoughts of Nietzsche, the Categorical Imperative should be seen as dangerous due to it urging all people to obey one grand moral code, and as such reduce them to mere automatons doing their duty. We should all create for ourselves our own values and as such the Categorical Imperative does not promote that.

On a totally different point, Kant's view that the rationality that humans possess gives them their intrinstic value could leave a loop hole enabling people to do anything they so wish to humans who aren't rational, and to animals. I think Kant gets around the animal part by saying that if a human hurts an animal then it'd make them inclined to hurt human beings and so they should refrain from it (although I can't vouch for the accuracy of that).

Oh, plus the Categorical Imperative only teaches the individual to be moral regardless of the consequences. A much quoted example is the man not lying to gangsters who desire to kill someone hiding in your house. The Categorical Imperative may work perfectly in a rational sense but on a realistic note human beings are never going to all follow it and so people who don't have the potential to take advantage of the situation. I've never been a fan of the Categorical Imperative or any other moral system that tries to produce absolute moral statements (such as Natural Law) due to the fact they are incapable of taking into account the many different circumstances that come into play in an ethical dilemma.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

[QUOTE]like Kant a lot, have yet to read any of his books published, but I heard his first book was written when he was 19...woah, that's young. [QUOTE]

Kant is extremely diffucult to read. I have read his three critiques but it will take many more years of studying them before I feel I could really read those books. If you want to study Kant I would advise on either a dictionary of Philosophy or a dictionary of Kantian terms which should be avaible in most college libraries.

Back to the philosophy. I agree with Nietzsche in relation to Kantian morality. Although I agree with most of Kant's thought, I find fault with him on the categorical imperative. My thought is extremely German as you all may have guessed.

According to Nietzsche Kant believes his moral imperative is guaranteed by the light of reason alone.
Nietzsche I guess would call this moral fanatcism, basically it shows Kant's theologians instinct.

Nietzsche believes morality cannot be based upon reason alone or and this is so Nietzschen, if it is, my reason may be different than yours...

We must all devise our own virtue, our own categorical imperative. Overall a community perishes if it mistakes its own duty for the conept of general duty. For Kant the categorical imperative is mortally dangerous!

[Wenty]

I agree that the CI doesn't accept consequences and there being something dangerous about accepting a standard moral code.

Geist - don't you think that if we all develop our own moral code, or our own CI we run the risk or living in a society whereby law and justice become arbitrary. There has to be some sort of conception of good and bad in place to work on.

mmm..i'm not sure.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 02:22 PM


Oh, plus the Categorical Imperative only teaches the individual to be moral regardless of the consequences. A much quoted example is the man not lying to gangsters who desire to kill someone hiding in your house. The Categorical Imperative may work perfectly in a rational sense but on a realistic note human beings are never going to all follow it and so people who don't have the potential to take advantage of the situation. I've never been a fan of the Categorical Imperative or any other moral system that tries to produce absolute moral statements (such as Natural Law) due to the fact they are incapable of taking into account the many different circumstances that come into play in an ethical dilemma.
The reason I agree with the categorical imperative is that it prevents againt moral hypocrisy. The situation is irrelevant to what you are doing, if you arive at the same ends it doesn't matter how you did it, or why you did it, the point is that you still did it.

If I kill a man out of cold blood, and you kill someone who is beating up an old woman, that doesn't mean that killing was justified in your situation but not in mine. Yes it's nice that you helped the old woman, but you still killed someone.

The means don't justify the ends. Even if there are different circumstances the result isn't magically justified.

Killing is always killing regardless of why it was donem even if the reason is just the action isn't...that is to say if we are assuming that killing is wrong.

What I find most important about the categorical imperative is that it doesn't necassarily state that x is moral and y isnt...it states that if you assert that believe x to be moral, it will always be moral, and if you assert y to be immoral then it is always immoral.

It still allows for relativism, but shows that you can't have a double standad on morality.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 30 2004, 07:59 PM
I agree that the CI doesn't accept consequences and there being something dangerous about accepting a standard moral code.

Geist - don't you think that if we all develop our own moral code, or our own CI we run the risk or living in a society whereby law and justice become arbitrary. There has to be some sort of conception of good and bad in place to work on.

mmm..i'm not sure.

It is sometime I would really have to look into more. It's not that I take Nietzsche's idea over Kant its just that I find the CI inadaquate so far. I see too many problems with it and have yet to form an idea myself of morality to be honest.

To echo yourself, I'm not sure.

[Wenty]

I don't think there will ever be a moral doctrine that has world wide appeal though.

[Trissy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 09:19 PM
The means don't justify the ends. Even if there are different circumstances the result isn't magically justified.
Okay, I'll take an extreme example in an attempt to show why I believe the Categoical Imperative can never realistically work. Let's focus on killing since it was the example you used. We can make 'Don't kill people' a Categorical Imperative due to the fact that it can a) be universalised and b) it doesn't treat human beings as a means to an ends. If there were a war waged upon us (for example like in WW2) then if we followed this Categorical Imperative then we could not defend ourselves if we wanted to be moral in a Kantian sense. If we tried to make a Categorical Imperative along the lines of 'You can kill people in self-defence' then you would find thay it would fail because you'd be treating a human life as a means to a end (ie killing someone else in order that you yourself may live).

Many of us would say that defending yourself from attack whether it be on a personal or a global scale is different from from waging an attack, although in Kantian terms they are both immoral acts. If the Categorical Imperative was obeyed by all then sure the world would be a safer (if not duller) place, but we need to face facts that it never will be obeyed by all, and that if this is the case then those who obey it are at a distinct disadvanatge to those who don't.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by Trissy+Jan 31 2004, 06:51 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Trissy @ Jan 31 2004, 06:51 PM)
[email protected] 30 2004, 09:19 PM
The means don&#39;t justify the ends. Even if there are different circumstances the result isn&#39;t magically justified.
Okay, I&#39;ll take an extreme example in an attempt to show why I believe the Categoical Imperative can never realistically work. Let&#39;s focus on killing since it was the example you used. We can make &#39;Don&#39;t kill people&#39; a Categorical Imperative due to the fact that it can a) be universalised and b) it doesn&#39;t treat human beings as a means to an ends. If there were a war waged upon us (for example like in WW2) then if we followed this Categorical Imperative then we could not defend ourselves if we wanted to be moral in a Kantian sense. If we tried to make a Categorical Imperative along the lines of &#39;You can kill people in self-defence&#39; then you would find thay it would fail because you&#39;d be treating a human life as a means to a end (ie killing someone else in order that you yourself may live).

Many of us would say that defending yourself from attack whether it be on a personal or a global scale is different from from waging an attack, although in Kantian terms they are both immoral acts. If the Categorical Imperative was obeyed by all then sure the world would be a safer (if not duller) place, but we need to face facts that it never will be obeyed by all, and that if this is the case then those who obey it are at a distinct disadvanatge to those who don&#39;t. [/b]
You are using the imperative as if everyone is going to act morally all the time. THe categoricla imperative only gauges what is and isn&#39;t moral, not specific actions taken.

If I must defend myself by killing someone, that is fine, that doesn&#39;t however mean that my actions are justified, I didn&#39;t act morally, I&#39;m still alive, but I broke moral law.

Now tthe trouble comes in how you punish someone who breaks moral law. Someone who kills and cold blood doesn&#39;t recieve the same punishment as someone who kills during a war. However it&#39;s irrelevant because most law isn&#39; based on moral law, it&#39;s based on Justice(or atleast it should be)

If it was entirely based on morality then in America (a judeo-christian society) we should stone gays and prostitutes to death.

Once again the Categorical imperative gauges morality, not real world action.

Also about us not being able to defend ourselves, you can defend yourself without killing someone, especially with today&#39;s technology :D

[Trissy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2004, 10:19 PM
You are using the imperative as if everyone is going to act morally all the time. THe categoricla imperative only gauges what is and isn&#39;t moral, not specific actions taken.

If I must defend myself by killing someone, that is fine, that doesn&#39;t however mean that my actions are justified, I didn&#39;t act morally, I&#39;m still alive, but I broke moral law.

Now tthe trouble comes in how you punish someone who breaks moral law. Someone who kills and cold blood doesn&#39;t recieve the same punishment as someone who kills during a war. However it&#39;s irrelevant because most law isn&#39; based on moral law, it&#39;s based on Justice(or atleast it should be)

If it was entirely based on morality then in America (a judeo-christian society) we should stone gays and prostitutes to death.

Once again the Categorical imperative gauges morality, not real world action.

Also about us not being able to defend ourselves, you can defend yourself without killing someone, especially with today&#39;s technology :D
Yes, but it&#39;s in everyone&#39;s interest to act morally all the time because Kant believed in an afterlife because this world appears unjust and it would be irrational if there were no afterlife to make the Universe a just place. His writings on the moral argument for the existence of God go along these lines. Kant wouldn&#39;t care about there being any kind of injustice in this life because it would be rational that justice wouyld be fulfilled in another life. For Kant there must be some kind of deity in order to secure justice within the Universe.

If I killed someone in defence then according to the Categorical Imperative then I&#39;m as immoral as someone who kills with intent. We&#39;d both end up with some kind of punishment in the afterlife and this seems quite odd to me considering we&#39;d both have a different intent (ie to kill and to live). The Categorical Imerative ignores intent and ignores consequences in the attempt to establish a purely rational moral code and I cannot grasp how this is at all beneificial to mankind.

An American Christian/Jew may stone a gay person to death under their moral code, but with the Categorical Imperative it is immoral to be gay anyway due to the fact that you cannot universalise being gay due to the procreational difficulties (althought I expect you could argue that with IVF this is now irrelevant). On that note Kant&#39;s supposedly absolute moral code appears to have changed with the advent of new technology.

Also today&#39;s technology isn&#39;t that advanced considering the United States had to kill plenty of Iraqi soldiers in the name of &#39;defence&#39;.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 12:03 AM
Yes, but it&#39;s in everyone&#39;s interest to act morally all the time because Kant believed in an afterlife because this world appears unjust and it would be irrational if there were no afterlife to make the Universe a just place. His writings on the moral argument for the existence of God go along these lines. Kant wouldn&#39;t care about there being any kind of injustice in this life because it would be rational that justice wouyld be fulfilled in another life. For Kant there must be some kind of deity in order to secure justice within the Universe.

If I killed someone in defence then according to the Categorical Imperative then I&#39;m as immoral as someone who kills with intent. We&#39;d both end up with some kind of punishment in the afterlife and this seems quite odd to me considering we&#39;d both have a different intent (ie to kill and to live). The Categorical Imerative ignores intent and ignores consequences in the attempt to establish a purely rational moral code and I cannot grasp how this is at all beneificial to mankind.

An American Christian/Jew may stone a gay person to death under their moral code, but with the Categorical Imperative it is immoral to be gay anyway due to the fact that you cannot universalise being gay due to the procreational difficulties (althought I expect you could argue that with IVF this is now irrelevant). On that note Kant&#39;s supposedly absolute moral code appears to have changed with the advent of new technology.

Also today&#39;s technology isn&#39;t that advanced considering the United States had to kill plenty of Iraqi soldiers in the name of &#39;defence&#39;.
OK first and foremost let me say this, while I do agree with the categorical imperative I am also a believer in moral relativism. I support the CI in the strictist theoretical sense and I don&#39;t agree with any religous beliefs Kant happened to posses.

So since I also believe in moral relativism I&#39;m only saying that once asserted morality can not be partial to any given situation.

Also I do believe that if Killing is asserted as being bad that someone who kills out of defence and one who kills out of intent are both guilty, and what they are guilty of is killing.

Now since laws should be based on justice and not morality there is no reason someone killing in self defense shouldn&#39;t recieve the equal sentence of one who inteded to kill someone.


My only problem with Kant&#39;s categorical imperative was that he himself wasn&#39;t being objective and based what morality is on his personal religous beliefs.

I agree with the categorical imperative and moral relativism so I wouldn&#39;t condone the use of morality in passing judgement on someone, only that should someone break something they assereted as moral law they are a hypocrite.

Also yes the technology is good enough, we just choose not to use it

[Trissy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 12:30 AM
OK first and foremost let me say this, while I do agree with the categorical imperative I am also a believer in moral relativism. I support the CI in the strictist theoretical sense and I don&#39;t agree with any religous beliefs Kant happened to posses.

So since I also believe in moral relativism I&#39;m only saying that once asserted morality can not be partial to any given situation.

Also I do believe that if Killing is asserted as being bad that someone who kills out of defence and one who kills out of intent are both guilty, and what they are guilty of is killing.

Now since laws should be based on justice and not morality there is no reason someone killing in self defense shouldn&#39;t recieve the equal sentence of one who inteded to kill someone.


My only problem with Kant&#39;s categorical imperative was that he himself wasn&#39;t being objective and based what morality is on his personal religous beliefs.

I agree with the categorical imperative and moral relativism so I wouldn&#39;t condone the use of morality in passing judgement on someone, only that should someone break something they assereted as moral law they are a hypocrite.

Also yes the technology is good enough, we just choose not to use it
But Kant didn&#39;t create his Categorical Imperative based on his religious beliefs (he was actually against organised religion), he based them upon reason and that is why he ranks alongside the greatest rational philosophers such as Descartes and Leibniz. I agree with you that his CI makes perfect theoretical sense but when it comes to practical use I don&#39;t think anyone can or should use it as a basis for their morality.

Ifyou believe in moral relativism then they&#39;re not both guilty of killing. They&#39;re either right or wrong depending on whether you think that the circumstances of the killing are suitable for making that judgement.

Laws are indeed based on justice, but justice would take into account intent as well as consequences. That is why we have the crimes of murder and manslaughter. If we followed the CI then we would just have killing with equal sentances. Perhaps every crime would be sentanced the same because the CI only judges actions and not intent or consequences. As you said in a previous post, the application of the CI would be very difficult indeed.

We do have some technology and we do use it, but that is not to say it is fool proof or safe. Just look at that siege the Russian special forces tried to break up where they ended up killing many of the hostages. It wasn&#39;t just poor manangement that caused it...

[Lardlad95]

But Kant didn&#39;t create his Categorical Imperative based on his religious beliefs (he was actually against organised religion), he based them upon reason and that is why he ranks alongside the greatest rational philosophers such as Descartes and Leibniz.

I meant his belief in an afterlife that you mentioned in your previous post.



I agree with you that his CI makes perfect theoretical sense but when it comes to practical use I don&#39;t think anyone can or should use it as a basis for their morality

I do, it helps me in arguing against right wingers who support the death penalty but are against the right of teh woman to choose if they want to have an abortion.


Ifyou believe in moral relativism then they&#39;re not both guilty of killing. They&#39;re either right or wrong depending on whether you think that the circumstances of the killing are suitable for making that judgement.

I was speaking in a situation in which it was asserted that killing was immoral. When I give these examples I&#39;m speaking under the assumption that we have assumed that X is asserted to be moral or immoral.What is or isn&#39;t moral is relative, but once asserted it is moral or immoral in all given situations, that is what I meant by adding Moral Relativism into the conversation.

IN these hypothetical situations I was creating a situation in which the party commiting the murders believed Killing to be immoral. Once again I apply the categorical imperative to individual morality.


Laws are indeed based on justice, but justice would take into account intent as well as consequences. That is why we have the crimes of murder and manslaughter. If we followed the CI then we would just have killing with equal sentances. Perhaps every crime would be sentanced the same because the CI only judges actions and not intent or consequences. As you said in a previous post, the application of the CI would be very difficult indeed.

Yes I agree that is why morality has no place in law.






We do have some technology and we do use it, but that is not to say it is fool proof or safe. Just look at that siege the Russian special forces tried to break up where they ended up killing many of the hostages. It wasn&#39;t just poor manangement that caused it...

Good point, but we still have the technology so the potential is there

[Professor Moneybags]

Kant is extremely diffucult to read.

Probably because most of it is giberish

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 1 2004, 06:25 PM

Kant is extremely diffucult to read.

Probably because most of it is giberish

No its not he just uses precise terminology.

He was a genius and I don&#39;t think I need to defned him against a claim that his he is hard to read becuase its gibberish.

[Wenty]

Yes I agree that is why morality has no place in law.

Then how does justice work? How are laws made? How can we rely on justice to prosecute criminals?

It makes its all so arbitrary&#33;

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 08:04 PM

Yes I agree that is why morality has no place in law.

Then how does justice work? How are laws made? How can we rely on justice to prosecute criminals?

It makes its all so arbitrary&#33;
Morality has to do with right and wrong behavior. Tis seems fine on it&#39;s own, however Morality is too often mixed with religion, this is where it becomes a problem.

Justice should be based on reason and logic, not on what the individual feels is right. AN individual would wanted teh guy who accidently killed theiir brother in a drunken barfight to fry on the electric chair, that doesn&#39;t mean that the punishment is just.

[redstar2000]

Yes, but it&#39;s in everyone&#39;s interest to act morally all the time because Kant believed in an afterlife because this world appears unjust and it would be irrational if there were no afterlife to make the Universe a just place. His writings on the moral argument for the existence of God go along these lines. Kant wouldn&#39;t care about there being any kind of injustice in this life because it would be rational that justice would be fulfilled in another life. For Kant there must be some kind of deity in order to secure justice within the Universe.

Correct me if I am mistaken, but doesn&#39;t this use of a deity "sink Kant&#39;s ship"?

Since there are no gods, what&#39;s left of his thought that could possibly be valid?

Just asking...

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Trissy]

But Kant didn&#39;t create his Categorical Imperative based on his religious beliefs (he was actually against organised religion), he based them upon reason and that is why he ranks alongside the greatest rational philosophers such as Descartes and Leibniz.


I meant his belief in an afterlife that you mentioned in your previous post.

His belief in the afterlife was based on reason, not the fact that he had vague Christian beliefs. His belief in Universal justice which influenced the Categorical Imperative had nothing to do with Jesus, the Trinity, eternal life or any other Christian doctrine.



QUOTE
I agree with you that his CI makes perfect theoretical sense but when it comes to practical use I don&#39;t think anyone can or should use it as a basis for their morality


I do, it helps me in arguing against right wingers who support the death penalty but are against the right of teh woman to choose if they want to have an abortion.

That&#39;s a very interesting point. I&#39;d even be as bold to say that the Categorical Imperative supports a mothers right to have an abortion because you could Universalise a mother having an abortion if she didn&#39;t have the means or ability to support the child, and that a feotus doesn&#39;t have any value because it isn&#39;t a rational being (it merely has the potential for rationality which is a different thing).



Correct me if I am mistaken, but doesn&#39;t this use of a deity "sink Kant&#39;s ship"?

Since there are no gods, what&#39;s left of his thought that could possibly be valid?

Well as an atheist I&#39;d be inclined to agree with you but in an attempt to be unbiased I&#39;ll explain why I think the Categorical Imperative could survive. Kant&#39;s belief in a God and in an afterlife were based upon reason alone. Even if you questioned his reasoning as to God&#39;s existence, the Categorical Imperative would survive because it is based on a slightly different line of reasoning. The Categorical Imperative attempts to minimise suffering in this world and produce a moral system that isn&#39;t affected by peoples whims or emotions. If we could produce an argument proving that God doesn&#39;t exist it could be argued that nihilism and anarchy would rule, but I still think we can be moral in a Godless Universe. I think that morality is a human attempt to produce a just Universe, and that just because it&#39;s a human creation it doesn&#39;t mean it is necessarily a flawed and useless one. Morality and justice based on reasoning could well have many practical benifits to the human race and so Kant&#39;s Categorical Imperative would still be a possibility. As I&#39;ve argued in previous posts I don&#39;t think it&#39;s a good one, but it is a possibility none the less.

[Wenty]

I think that morality is a human attempt to produce a just Universe

That sounds awfully Niezschean tristan&#33;


In response to lardlad95 - i agree justice should be based (partly) on reason and logic but you can&#39;t help someone deciding morally, its in their nature. I think morality should have a say somewhere and it seems inevitable anyway.

[redstar2000]

Yes, but it&#39;s in everyone&#39;s interest to act morally all the time because Kant believed in an afterlife...

But since there is no "afterlife", it may or may not be in "everyone&#39;s" interest to "act morally all the time".

Especially if any act, once defined as "moral", must always be moral; presumably, in Kant&#39;s view, any act once defined as "immoral" must always be immoral.

Granted that these are "murky waters" for me, this seems to be a very irrational way to construct a "rational" morality.

Perhaps it is my "anti-philosophical" bias at work--or sheer ignorance, for that matter--but it seems to me that for any conception of morality to make sense, it has to be constructed on the basis of real world knowledge...and not a priori abstract reasoning.

I&#39;m aware that Kant has a "lofty" reputation among students of philosophy--there are neo-Kantians, for example, today.

I just can&#39;t see why.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[praxis1966]

I agree with Redstar. As far as I am concerned, I can not see the worldly relevance of a moral code (or any other philosophy) not heavily grounded in pragmatism. Maybe I&#39;m just showing my ignorance here, but I fail to see how moral relativism and the categorical imparative can intermingle at any point. Since the philosophical basis of moral relativism has a strong element of individualism at it&#39;s core, I would think that it and the categorical imperitave were mutually exclusive.

[Trissy]

If you remove then afterlife from the Categorical Imperative then it is still in most people&#39;s interest to act morally because it is safer for them to do so. It is an advantage to live a life free from continual competition with one another and I think this is what Hobbes was on about when he talked of a Social Contract. If this is the only life we get then we must make it as enjoyable and long for everybody as is humanly possible. If this means having to occasionally sacrifice a personal pleasure for the good of the community then so be it.

I have yet to read Kant&#39;s work and so I cannot comment on why exactly he has such a high reputation, although I&#39;m aware of some of his ideas and can see why many of them are important in the history of philosophy (such as the distinction between the world as it is and the world as it appears). I don&#39;t agree with his moral work due to it&#39;s rigidity but I feel somewhat compeled to reassess it every now and then to make sure I&#39;ve not done it a grave misjustice.

His Categorical Imperative is profoundly based on a priori reasoning but it does consider the possible effects of universalisation. In this respect it does take into account a posteriori knowledge to a very small extent because you need past experiences to consider possible future ones.

Indeed the Categorical Imperative is an absolute moral system and it cannot be combined with moral relativism but I&#39;ve been thinking it over and to some extent you could make it slightly more relative depending on the wording and use of reasoning (just like you can make Utilitarianism more absolute by using the Rule version instead of the Act one). For example we could say that there is a Catergorical Imperative saying &#39;Don&#39;t be gay&#39; due to the fact that universalising this would make procreation difficult (although admitedly this argument is pretty void now with the advances in fertility treatment). But if you could also make a Categorical Imperative along the lines of &#39;If you have homosexual feelings then you should be free to practise them&#39; (as long as you don&#39;t force them on someone who objects of course) since you can universalise this due to the fact that not everybody is gay. It&#39;s a quirk I admit, and I think I&#39;ll have to mull it over some more...

[Lardlad95]

That&#39;s a very interesting point. I&#39;d even be as bold to say that the Categorical Imperative supports a mothers right to have an abortion because you could Universalise a mother having an abortion if she didn&#39;t have the means or ability to support the child, and that a feotus doesn&#39;t have any value because it isn&#39;t a rational being (it merely has the potential for rationality which is a different thing).

See the Categorical Imperative as well as other philosophical ideas can be used when it convenient. :D

[Wenty]

What do people have to say about other aspects of Kant&#39;s philosophy then?

[Trissy]

As I said my knowledge of Kant is fairly basic but I agree with most of his views about the phenomenal and the noumenal worlds. Although that said I also agree with Hume&#39;s empirical views which may clash with some areas of Kantian philosophy.