NationStates Jolt Archive

Mabye this is too obscure, I am not sure, but do you feel the categorical imperative as at least somewhat true moral theory?

To be honest, I have no clue what it is. Could you enlighten me?

define "true"

googling might be best but Kant held that there was a categorical imperative(an imperative or command that is always or categorically in effect)it gets rather complex but the formulations will give you a good idea. the one I know off the top of my head is "so act that the maxim of your action you would at the same time will a universal law" or something close to that. The maxim of an action is the rule it creates. Like for murder it is to unilaterally decide to bring an end to anothers life.

Absolutely not. The moral imperative is a tautology; it describes no real information. The concept of the universal maxim is itself subjective because I can theorize scenarios under which even the most obviously acceptable moral codes could, theoretically, be undesireable or inapplicable. As such, its command to derive only those moral codes that can be willed into universal law is tautological in that it says "It is a universal code because you will it to be so; you are able to will it to be so because it is a universal code." Or, on deeper level, it says that "there is a universal moral precept (the subject of my imperative) that is universal, and I know that it is universal because I personally will not apply it in any other fashion." But, despite Kant's desire to escape from Hume, he has wandered right back to him: the universal cannot be contained in the self.

If we apply the concepts of New Criticism to this theory and analyze strictly its formal components, we easily arrive at the logical impossibility of the moral imperative, or better yet, the logical impossibility of any universal moral code because there exist some people who believe that universal morality would be immoral; suppose I am a moral philosopher: if I find a universal moral code, then my line of work is finished much like what happens to cartogrophers after we map the whole planet. I therefore find a universal moral code to be immoral.

Kant's intention to combine naturalistic elements of humanity with the non-concept of free self-determination results in a logical contradiction. His theory rests upon it being universally inappropriate to infringe upon the rights of man as a free and rational being; suppose I am not at all interested in respecting the rights of man as a free and rational being?

define "true"

A principal that one should live under(I am just talking morally of course)

googling might be best but Kant held that there was a categorical imperative(an imperative or command that is always or categorically in effect)it gets rather complex but the formulations will give you a good idea. the one I know off the top of my head is "so act that the maxim of your action you would at the same time will a universal law" or something close to that. The maxim of an action is the rule it creates. Like for murder it is to unilaterally decide to bring an end to anothers life.

Or it could be to release them into a better life..maybe? Idk..too tired to think :(

Absolutely not. The moral imperative is a tautology; it describes no real information. The concept of the universal maxim is itself subjective because I can theorize scenarios under which even the most obviously acceptable moral codes could, theoretically, be undesireable or inapplicable. As such, its command to derive only those moral codes that can be willed into universal law is tautological in that it says "It is a universal code because you will it to be so; you are able to will it to be so because it is a universal code." Or, on deeper level, it says that "there is a universal moral precept (the subject of my imperative) that is universal, and I know that it is universal because I personally will not apply it in any other fashion." But, despite Kant's desire to escape from Hume, he has wandered right back to him: the universal cannot be contained in the self.

If we apply the concepts of New Criticism to this theory and analyze strictly its formal components, we easily arrive at the logical impossibility of the moral imperative, or better yet, the logical impossibility of any universal moral code because there exist some people who believe that universal morality would be immoral; suppose I am a moral philosopher: if I find a universal moral code, then my line of work is finished much like what happens to cartogrophers after we map the whole planet. I therefore find a universal moral code to be immoral.

Kant's intention to combine naturalistic elements of humanity with the non-concept of free self-determination results in a logical contradiction. His theory rests upon it being universally inappropriate to infringe upon the rights of man as a free and rational being; suppose I am not at all interested in respecting the rights of man as a free and rational being?

First I suggest an understanding of the Kantian conception of free will, second just because one holds a sujective belief(a hypothetical imperative)this in no way affects the categorical one. If someone decides that they are not going to act in accordance with being free and rational they are being immoral, it is not merely tautological it means creating rules every rational man would agree to. Rules that every rational man would agree to as morality to is not a tautology but a first principle. Two analytical philosophers (Rawls and Nozick) rely on Kant heavily for their political philosophy, so it cannot be as flawed as you claim in the eyes of formal logic. You also need to understand how the CI operates on a noumenal level. I know my response is insufficient but I am writing with a tablet.

googling might be best but Kant held that there was a categorical imperative(an imperative or command that is always or categorically in effect)it gets rather complex but the formulations will give you a good idea. the one I know off the top of my head is "so act that the maxim of your action you would at the same time will a universal law" or something close to that. The maxim of an action is the rule it creates. Like for murder it is to unilaterally decide to bring an end to anothers life.

Or it could be to release them into a better life..maybe? Idk..too tired to think :(

Would a rational person agree to a rule which lets others kill them even if they do not wish to be killed? If the killing consentual completely then its a different action and maxim.

Absolutely not. The moral imperative is a tautology; it describes no real information. The concept of the universal maxim is itself subjective because I can theorize scenarios under which even the most obviously acceptable moral codes could, theoretically, be undesireable or inapplicable.

But on what do you base the "obviously acceptable"-ness of those moral codes then ?
To rephrase: why are you so certain that what you think is "obviously right" in fact *is* right ? Without even knowing what your morals are I can say with pretty high certainty I would be able to find a group of people that disagrees with you.