NationStates Jolt Archive

Alright, I'm being good and reading my text book for philosophy and I am now going over kant's theory of morality.

Now the general idea behind it is that when you are thinking if something is right or wrong you should consider the maxium (what the world would be if everyone did it).

Now I cannot accept this as true, because it would rule out being homosexual, or other wize non reproductive. because that would lead to the extinction of human kind.

Now as some of you know, I am not starting a homo-bashing thread, so just don't even come in here with that idea in your head. I was just found this kinda amusing, so because I am gay I am immoral...

Additionally.... Does kant think of people as natural beings that have predesignated ideas of what is right and wrong... or de we do the self-determination ourselves.... it kinda seems that he goes between the 2...

Either way, this was somehting I thought was funny...

We've sort of touched on Kant's ideas in my moral phil class...doesn't really appeal to me. I personally prefer negative utilitarianism.

So being a dentist is immoral too? I always expected as much.

Immanuel kant was a real pissant, who was very rarely sober.

Alright, I'm being good and reading my text book for philosophy and I am now going over kant's theory of morality.

Now the general idea behind it is that when you are thinking if something is right or wrong you should consider the maxium (what the world would be if everyone did it).

Now I cannot accept this as true, because it would rule out being homosexual, or other wize non reproductive. because that would lead to the extinction of human kind.

Now as some of you know, I am not starting a homo-bashing thread, so just don't even come in here with that idea in your head. I was just found this kinda amusing, so because I am gay I am immoral...

Additionally.... Does kant think of people as natural beings that have predesignated ideas of what is right and wrong... or de we do the self-determination ourselves.... it kinda seems that he goes between the 2...

Either way, this was somehting I thought was funny...

Dude, I'm immoral for so many reasons:
-I enjoy watching Jeopardy.
-I live in Canada.
-I like my salmon raw.
-I don't eat rice.
-I own at least two Smiths albums.
-I own at least two different recordings of the Highlights of PTO.
-The list goes on...

I don't think it would be so bad if everyone was gay. We have artificial insemination now. Well some people don't so they'll probably die but what can you do about it?

Now I cannot accept this as true, because it would rule out being homosexual, or other wize non reproductive. because that would lead to the extinction of human kind.

Homosexuals are non-reproductive? 50000 children in Sweden alone that have gay parents would disagree. Gay people aren't sterile, you know.

Kantian deontology would probably say that this led to a contradiction in the will, because so many people want children that the maxim "Only have sexual relationships with members of the same gender" would lead to a world many people disagreed with. In order to be universalisable there can be no contradictions. Also, there may be a case for a contradiction in nature itself, since after a few decades there'd be nobody left to carry it out.

Fass, old chap, you're missing the point; Kantian deontology is a mechanistically cold system of action-descriptors: "Be homosexual" isn't enough for a maxim, because it doesn't describe actions, which is why I outlined the one he'd probably have objected to above. The rule to be applied, strictly speaking (and forgive my clumsy phrasing), is "Act only on that maxim which you can at the same time will to apply to all people in all situations."

Homosexuals are non-reproductive? 50000 children in Sweden alone that have gay parents would disagree. Gay people aren't sterile, you know.

*Immense appaulse.*

Fass, old chap, you're missing the point; Kantian deontology is a mechanistically cold system of action-descriptors: "Be homosexual" isn't enough for a maxim, because it doesn't describe actions, which is why I outlined the one he'd probably have objected to above. The rule to be applied, strictly speaking (and forgive my clumsy phrasing), is "Act only on that maxim which you can at the same time will to apply to all people in all situations."

And I do. Nothing would make me happier than everyone being gay, but that just won't happen, so I don't dwell on it. The supposition here is the flawed one that just because you're gay you won't have children, and that not having children is a bad thing. Straight people have procreative sex just a few times in their lives. Are they immoral for that? They are wasting seed and eggs! They could be making babies at least once per year, but they don't, the selfish and immoral bastards! Apparantly most of the time they act just like gay people. :rolleyes:

Now the general idea behind it is that when you are thinking if something is right or wrong you should consider the maxium (what the world would be if everyone did it).

Now I cannot accept this as true, because it would rule out being homosexual, or other wize non reproductive. because that would lead to the extinction of human kind.

Ah, but Kant's first principle is that we are duty-bound to treat others as ends-in-themselves, rather than means to ends. (The categorical imperative is really meant to be a more "practical" formulation of how to figure out if you are treating people as means rather than ends.)

Clearly, then, for the purposes of moral decision-making, no one can be treated as merely the means to reproductive ends.

Thus, to decide the question, "may I engage in consensual homosexual sex," I ask myself, "if everyone were to engage in consensual homosexual sex, would anyone wind up being treated as merely a means, rather than an end-in-her/himself?"

The answer is no: you are allowing everyone the dignity of free choice.

If humankind were to choose, voluntarily, to end its own existence by refusing to procreate, Kant would have no (ethical) problem with that.

Additionally.... Does kant think of people as natural beings that have predesignated ideas of what is right and wrong...

No, but once we arrive at thinking freedom (through the transcendental deduction of the "I" of apperception), we learn to respect one another's autonomy as an assertion of the reality of our own. (Free will is not something Kant can prove, but this in itself is what makes it so important to morality. He can only prove that one cannot disprove the possibility of free will, any more than one can disprove the possibility of God.)

Alright, I'm being good and reading my text book for philosophy and I am now going over kant's theory of morality.

Now the general idea behind it is that when you are thinking if something is right or wrong you should consider the maxium (what the world would be if everyone did it).

Now I cannot accept this as true, because it would rule out being homosexual, or other wize non reproductive. because that would lead to the extinction of human kind.

Now as some of you know, I am not starting a homo-bashing thread, so just don't even come in here with that idea in your head. I was just found this kinda amusing, so because I am gay I am immoral...

Additionally.... Does kant think of people as natural beings that have predesignated ideas of what is right and wrong... or de we do the self-determination ourselves.... it kinda seems that he goes between the 2...

Either way, this was somehting I thought was funny...

Kantian morality is flawed, from the simple fact that it operates in maxim in the first place.

That is, merely the effect if "Everyone did it" is not a valid reason, simply because not everyone will. Making the argument, itself, rhetorical.

This is the primary reason why I consider Aristotelian ethics, superior to Kantian Absolutist Morality... Aristotelian ethics deals with things realistically, while Kantian relies on sophistry...

Immanuel kant was a real pissant, who was very rarely sober.

Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-manuel Kant was a real pissant, who was very rarely stable.

Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
Who could drink you under the table.

David Hume could out-consume
Wilhelm Freidrick Hegel

And Wittgenstein was beery swine
Who was just as sloshed as Schlegel

There's nothing Neitzche couldn't teach-ya 'bout the raising of the wrist.

Socrates himself was permanately pissed!

John Stuard Mill of his own free will
On half-a-pint of shanty was particularly ill.

Plato they say, could stick it away
Half a crate of whiskey everyday!

Aristlotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle.
Hobbs was fond of his dram!

And Rene Descrartes was drunken fart!
"I drink therefore I am!"

Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed!

A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed!

Now the general idea behind it is that when you are thinking if something is right or wrong you should consider the maxium (what the world would be if everyone did it).
If everyone became a philosopher, there'd be no one left to grow food and we'd all die. Therefore becoming a philosopher is immoral.

;)

We've sort of touched on Kant's ideas in my moral phil class...doesn't really appeal to me. I personally prefer negative utilitarianism.

What, if it hurts, don't do it?

Homosexuals are non-reproductive? 50000 children in Sweden alone that have gay parents would disagree. Gay people aren't sterile, you know.

Where do you get your stats? Are you just basing your number on an assumption of percentages?

Sweden:
Population:
9,001,774 (July 2005 est.)

Age Structure:
0-14 years: 17.1% (male 791,215/female 747,621)
15-64 years: 65.5% (male 2,990,436/female 2,904,873)
65 years and over: 17.4% (male 677,161/female 890,468) (2005 est.)

So 50,000 would be about 3% of all the children in Sweden, yes?

Population growth rate:
0.17% (2005 est.)

Birth Rate:
10.36 births/1,000 population (2005 est.)

Death Rate:
10.36 deaths/1,000 population (2005 est.)

It looks like the argument first posted could be right because Sweden doesn't have any growth rate at all, if it wasn't for immigration (net immigration rate: 1.67 migrant(s)/1,000 population) Sweden would be dying because the 5% SS couples in Sweden are not replacing themselves :p

<snip>

Brilliant work. Now you just need to figure out how many of the immigrants are gay....

And I do. Nothing would make me happier than everyone being gay, but that just won't happen, so I don't dwell on it. The supposition here is the flawed one that just because you're gay you won't have children, and that not having children is a bad thing. Straight people have procreative sex just a few times in their lives. Are they immoral for that? They are wasting seed and eggs! They could be making babies at least once per year, but they don't, the selfish and immoral bastards! Apparantly most of the time they act just like gay people. :rolleyes:

Exactly. (Everyone gay... hmmm. :D ) In the world now, gay people can still impregnate and there is plenty of people who are straight and never have kids.

It is also based on the false assumption that individuals are responsible for increasing the human population on this world. Given overpopulation issues, this is not really an issue anymore. It could even be argued that breeders are irresponsible for flooding the world with kids they cannot support! If you look at taxation systems, gay people are disproportionately paying towards facilities for breeders and kids. Who is being immoral? ;)

On a final, closing note: liberal utilitarianism all the way, Kant sucks.

Greenlander: this still has nothing to do with homosexuals, though, as Fass correctly argued. ;) And as Tekania says, "Everyone did it" is not a valid reason, simply because not everyone will.

Where do you get your stats? Are you just basing your number on an assumption of percentages?

SOU 2001:10 Barn i homosexuella familjer - the Government investigation into the matter that lay as a basis for the changing of the Swedish Adoption law to accommodate homosexual couples.

It looks like the argument first posted could be right because Sweden doesn't have any growth rate at all, if it wasn't for immigration (net immigration rate: 1.67 migrant(s)/1,000 population) Sweden would be dying because the 5% SS couples in Sweden are not replacing themselves :p

Sweden's population growth is not affected by homosexuality. In fact, it is actually typical of Western Europe, where growing liberalisation and gender equality have lead to increased access to birth control that has lead to women being very ardent in controlling their own fertility. The lowering birth rates are caused by heterosexuals wielding control over their breeding patterns.

Yet again, Greenlander, your "analysis," and I use that term as loosely as possible, is not only, as is your custom, irrelevant, but expectedly flawed.

If everyone became a philosopher, there'd be no one left to grow food and we'd all die. Therefore becoming a philosopher is immoral.

Wow, that's a good point.

Alright, I'm being good and reading my text book for philosophy and I am now going over kant's theory of morality.

Now the general idea behind it is that when you are thinking if something is right or wrong you should consider the maxium (what the world would be if everyone did it).

Now I cannot accept this as true, because it would rule out being homosexual, or other wize non reproductive. because that would lead to the extinction of human kind.

Now as some of you know, I am not starting a homo-bashing thread, so just don't even come in here with that idea in your head. I was just found this kinda amusing, so because I am gay I am immoral...

Additionally.... Does kant think of people as natural beings that have predesignated ideas of what is right and wrong... or de we do the self-determination ourselves.... it kinda seems that he goes between the 2...

Either way, this was somehting I thought was funny...

In fact, according to this logic, being hetero would also be immoral:

Think about it. Everybody's straight, everybody's having many children... And this leads to overpopulation, destruction of our environment and eventually of our planet. Then we all die. It's pretty much the same as being all gay. And, funnily enough, it's happening RIGHT NOW.:eek:

Immanuel kant was a real pissant, who was very rarely sober.

'...And Bruce here teaches logical positivism and is also in charge of the sheep dip.' :p

snip

Exactly, the universalisation of homosexual behavior causes no contradictions nor does it use others as a means, so it does not present a moral issue to Kant.

That is, merely the effect if "Everyone did it" is not a valid reason, simply because not everyone will. Making the argument, itself, rhetorical.
Unless you're a moral relativist, how the fuck does this matter? If you are talking about morality in an objective sense, than what everyone else actually does is largely irrelevant. And, just to show why moral relativism is stupid, it allows me to kill you and than skullfuck your head, and what I did cannot be considered "bad". Unfortunate for you, perhaps, but you could not classify my action as "bad" and morally wrong without breaking from moral relativity because you have introduced a moral objectiveness.

I don't think you can make morality relative. That is the basic problem with Kant. What about absolutes? Are there no absolutes on the sole merit of the principal? Or are all absolutes dependent on other principals (or activities) for their positive or negative value?

I don't think you can make morality relative. That is the basic problem with Kant. What about absolutes? Are there no absolutes on the sole merit of the principal? Or are all absolutes dependent on other principals (or activities) for their positive or negative value?

What ever gave you the idea that Kant is a relativist?

You do know he wrote an essay entitled "On a Supposed Right to Lie" in which he argued that it is never, under any circumstances, acceptable to tell a lie?

I Kant believe he would say that.

of course i dont know crap about kant, i tried reading something by him once but it was just too damned boring.

but

sure you should CONSIDER the question of "what if everyone did it?". it makes good sense to do so. it can bring the issue into focus. that doesnt mean that if it fails the test for some reason that it has to be wrong.

for example if everyone played jazz every night, it would bad. but wynton marsalis can play jazz every night and its very good.

it also depends on how you phrase the question eh? if you ask "should i try gay sex?" the answer might be different from "should i follow my own sexual orientation?"

"should i try gay sex?"

Yeah, I think you should try gay sex. You know you want it ;)


Edit: Alright, that was an easy shot. For those who didn't catch on, I'm kidding. And totally off topic. I'll shut up now.

Unless you're a moral relativist, how the fuck does this matter? If you are talking about morality in an objective sense, than what everyone else actually does is largely irrelevant. And, just to show why moral relativism is stupid, it allows me to kill you and than skullfuck your head, and what I did cannot be considered "bad". Unfortunate for you, perhaps, but you could not classify my action as "bad" and morally wrong without breaking from moral relativity because you have introduced a moral objectiveness.

"What if everyone did it" was the crux of the original point. The rest of your dysfunctional tripe, was pointless rhetoric, and had no bearing on anything I said. It's amazing how you have invented an entire argument to defeat.

There is a name for that STRAWMAN...

And your example can be negated through ethical consideration.

"Allowed to kill you.." maybe, maybe not. Killing is not itself bad [immoral]; though can occur through bad [unethical] reasons. For example: If I were trying to kill you; that could be valid [ethical] grounds for killing me; though if I were just walking down the street would it still be? No, each person should be afforded their right to life. Since killing can be right or wrong, there is no such thing as an "absolute"; but each case should be handled on it's own merit and circumstance. "Murder" for example, is something which is unethical; and which is defined ethically; "the unlawfull killing of a person"... It's "absolute" is only "absolute" as far as it's application to law "-lawfull"; but the usage could be moved around or changed, through Law, making it a non-absolute term, in reality.

In Moral Absolutism, the same punishment and penalty comes down upon the driver who ran over the child.

In Ethics, consideration is viewed: And a drunk or such who barrels over the child receives harsher treatment than the person going the speed limit when a child suddenly jumps directly in front of the car.... Ethics deal with reality; while Moral Absolutism devoids itself of consideration or thought; but merely lashes back on all similtude's of acts, without first reasoning.