NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been looking over Kant's first formulation and trying to figure out a way it doesn't work and I think I've come up with an example (assuming I understand it well and and have defined everything properly) anyways, if anyone knows more about this than I do and would like to double check I would really appreciate it.

Kant's first formulation
1. Come up with a rule of conduct that gives a reason to act as proposed. (i.e. lying to get something one wants)
2. Present this maxim as a universal law that governs all rational agents. (i.e. everyone lies to get what they want)
3. Is it possible to follow this rule in the world with this law of nature? If it is contradictory or impossible it is immoral. (No, if everyone in the world lied to get what they wanted, no one would take anyone’s word on anything and there wouldn’t be an opportunity to lie to get what one wanted.)
4. Would you or could you rationally will to act on this rule in this world? If yes then the action is morally permissible.

My version of how being a doctor with the aim of helping people is immoral:
1. Being a doctor to help people.
2. Everyone is a doctor and helps people.
3. If everyone was a doctor then there wouldn’t be enough people to help. Thus being a doctor with the aim of helping people is contradictory and immoral.

Here's a page about Kant's moral philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/
the part about his first formulation is in section 5, the formula of the universal law of nature.

Also, if someone else can think of a better example or sees a way this is contradictory (or knows of a philosopher who has already picked it apart and all) that would also be very much appreciated.

No, the two are not equivalent at all. If there are already enough doctors, becoming a doctor will not help anyone, and I will not be becoming a doctor to help people. This can be established as a universal law of nature without trouble.

The mere mentality of lying, however, is enough to demolish trust; a society in which everyone deceived others whenever it benefited them would also be a society in which no one benefited from deception. The maxim is only useful insofar as it is not a universal law of nature, and thus cannot truly be a maxim based on reason.

No, the two are not equivalent at all.
I didn't say that the examples were equivalent, just that they seem to fail on the same point for different reasons.

If there are already enough doctors, becoming a doctor will not help anyone, and I will not be becoming a doctor to help people. This can be established as a universal law of nature without trouble.
But part of the idea is that all moral agents must become doctors to help people in order for it to be a universal law of nature. (it I'm not mistaken) and because there will be enough doctors to help all people, not everyone will be able to become a doctor and help people in such a capacity. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, or propose something that appears to be good that violates Kant's requirements...

The mere mentality of lying, however, is enough to demolish trust; a society in which everyone deceived others whenever it benefited them would also be a society in which no one benefited from deception. The maxim is only useful insofar as it is not a universal law of nature, and thus cannot truly be a maxim based on reason.
This I agree with.

But part of the idea is that all moral agents must become doctors to help people in order for it to be a universal law of nature. (it I'm not mistaken) and because there will be enough doctors to help all people, not everyone will be able to become a doctor and help people in such a capacity.

Well, not exactly. "It is permissible to become a doctor" being binding upon all rational beings does not mean that they all have to become doctors, it merely means that they have the option, morally. We must indeed take into account what would happen if they all did choose to make that choice, but we need not say that they are all required to make the choice.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, or propose something that appears to be good that violates Kant's requirements...

The biggest problem with Kant's first formulation is that it specifies a manner in which we can test the validity of maxims, but does not prescribe the limits of their content.

Edit: See my later post for an example of this, the original one here was poorly thought out.

Well, not exactly. "It is permissible to become a doctor" being binding upon all rational beings does not mean that they all have to become doctors, it merely means that they have the option, morally. We must indeed take into account what would happen if they all did choose to make that choice, but we need not say that they are all required to make the choice.
I thought that part of the second bit, where it's recast as a universal law is asking what happened if all moral agents must act as proposed. It's the fourth section where choice comes in.

The biggest problem with Kant's first formulation is that it specifies a manner in which we can test the validity of maxims, but does not prescribe the limits of their content.

I could say, for instance, "it is permissible to lie in a society where lying is taboo," and I can universalize this without trouble.
But then well, first of all, the action would need a desired result, correct? At any rate, if everyone lied, even in a society where lying is taboo then no one would trust anyone. However, since you didn't propose a purpose to the lying, it doesn't really fail to meet any of the criteria, it's conceivable for everyone to lie in a society wher elying is taboo, people could willfully act in such a manner, but there isn't a reason for the lying.

I thought that part of the second bit, where it's recast as a universal law is asking what happened if all moral agents must act as proposed.

We must ask both questions, but the two questions are not synonymous.

If we wish to give everyone a choice to do something, we must consider the consequences if everyone in fact makes that choice, but we need not say that everyone is obligated to make that choice. We need only say that everyone is obligated to act according to the maxim, which gives us a choice.

But then well, first of all, the action would need a desired result, correct? At any rate, if everyone lied, even in a society where lying is taboo then no one would trust anyone. However, since you didn't propose a purpose to the lying, it doesn't really fail to meet any of the criteria, it's conceivable for everyone to lie in a society wher elying is taboo, people could willfully act in such a manner, but there isn't a reason for the lying.

Nevermind, the maxim I chose was even more clearly self-defeating than the one Kant did; if everyone in a society where lying is taboo decides to lie, lying is no longer taboo. Sorry, I have been tired all week, and today seems no exception.

A better one to illustrate the point would be "it is permissible to lie if your NS username is Soheran." A Kantian would probably reply that I cannot include "if your NS username is Soheran" in there, but this is not clear; I cannot derive the maxim from the circumstance that my username is Soheran, for otherwise I will never go beyond a mere hypothetical imperative, but there is no prohibition on the maxim itself referencing circumstances, merely on limiting its application to certain circumstances.

We must ask both questions, but the two questions are not synonymous.

If we wish to give everyone a choice to do something, we must consider the consequences if everyone in fact makes that choice, but we need not say that everyone is obligated to make that choice. We need only say that everyone is obligated to act according to the maxim, which gives us a choice.
Oh, I see.

A better one to illustrate the point would be "it is permissible to lie if your NS username is Soheran." A Kantian would probably reply that I cannot include "if your NS username is Soheran" in there, but this is not clear; I cannot derive the maxim from the circumstance that my username is Soheran, for otherwise I will never go beyond a mere hypothetical imperative, but there is no prohibition on the maxim itself referencing circumstances, merely on limiting its application to certain circumstances.
But if every Soheran lied to say, borrow some money then no one would take the word of a Soheran who went to borrow money and then a Soheran would have no opportunity to lie and borrow money.

Sweet! Nobody beat me to it yet!

Ahem...


*sings*
Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable...

Sweet! Nobody beat me to it yet!

Ahem...


*sings*
Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable...
Hahaha. I love that song.

Who the fuck is this Kant guy?

Who the fuck is this Kant guy?
He's a philosopher, for more details, look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kant

Kant's first formulation
1. Come up with a rule of conduct that gives a reason to act as proposed. (i.e. lying to get something one wants)...
Okay, you lost me on #1. What is the rule here that becomes a maxim?

Who the fuck is this Kant guy?

See? It's posts like these that prevent me from posting anything other than jokes in otherwise serious threads on political theory or philosophy.

Explanation: My degree is in Political Science, and I concentrated on Early Modern political theory. Posts like that kill too many brain cells.

Okay, you lost me on #1. What is the rule here that becomes a maxim?
The rule of conduct is the maxim... sorry, he uses the term maxim to describe it everywhere but I just kinda put it in different words for my own comprehension. Unless you mean #1 in my attempt to find something that's generally considered good to be immoral. (i.e. the doctor example)

See? It's posts like these that prevent me from posting anything other than jokes in otherwise serious threads on political theory or philosophy.

Explanation: My degree is in Political Science, and I concentrated on Early Modern political theory. Posts like that kill too many brain cells.

I'm just saying, these random people show up in history as philosophers and people study them for what they've said, but honestly who the hell are they? They're random people we've found to be slightly interesting.

"Hey this guy named Kant apparently said stuff about absolute morals, let's talk about him for a while." "Really? Wow. Why?" "Because he said stuff!" "I'm saying stuff right now, too, you wanna discuss me in depth?"

If it's the thought and not the person you're interested, then don't mention the person because he becomes irrelevant unless he's got a string of really good ideas, and even then it's unneccesary to name his ideas after him.

The thread is about his ideas. Nobody asked anything like, "Did he ever participate in a sex vid with Paris Hilton?" Pay attention.

The thread is about his ideas. Nobody asked anything like, "Did he ever participate in a sex vid with Paris Hilton?" Pay attention.

Well?



... Did he? ^^


Seriously, though - it just bugs me when people throw out philosophies and tie them to people who vaguely referenced them a longass time ago and call the people philosophers. It's entirely possible to discuss this type of moral situation without ever even mentioning Kant, much less crediting him with the whole damn thing.

Seriously, though - it just bugs me when people throw out philosophies and tie them to people who vaguely referenced them a longass time ago and call the people philosophers. It's entirely possible to discuss this type of moral situation without ever even mentioning Kant, much less crediting him with the whole damn thing.
Why woudln't I credit him with this? I'm saying that within his framework of what he defined to be moral or immoral, I would like to find an absurd example either of something that we generally consider to be immoral showing up as moral or something that is generally held to be moral being found to be immoral within this framework.

If I had just said "This is my idea of what is moral, refute it" then people might take issue with my definition of what is moral and focus on that, or they might point out that I totally ripped off Kant without giving him credit for h is ideas. At the same time, mentioning that this is Kant's philosophy might also bring in people who know more about his moral philosophy than I do, which is really quite a desireable outcome as I want someone who knows more than me to give me their opinion on the subject so that I can learn more about it.

Honestly, not everyone who brings up a dead philosopher is trying to be a pretentious prick, sometimes we have reasons for mentioning who came up with the theory we're trying to discuss. Would you throw such a shit fit if I'd been discussing Einstein's theory of general relativity?

Well?



... Did he? ^^


Seriously, though - it just bugs me when people throw out philosophies and tie them to people who vaguely referenced them a longass time ago and call the people philosophers. It's entirely possible to discuss this type of moral situation without ever even mentioning Kant, much less crediting him with the whole damn thing.

Yeah, actually having read this stuff would have been too difficult for you, eh? Kant did throw this out there, so it would be ridiculous to post it here without citing him.

Come back when you've actually read a book other than The Little Engine That Could.

Yeah, actually having read this stuff would have been too difficult for you, eh? Kant did throw this out there, so it would be ridiculous to post it here without citing him.

Come back when you've actually read a book other than The Little Engine That Could.

No need to flame :p

I'm making a sweeping generalization of people who cite random 'philosophers' for little reason.

Sweeping generalizations are fun. =)

No need to flame :p

I'm making a sweeping generalization of people who cite random 'philosophers' for little reason.

Sweeping generalizations are fun. =)

No need to make sweeping generalisations either. ;)

No need to make sweeping generalisations either. ;)

Other than to have fun! Best reason ever, duh.

I'm making a sweeping generalization of people who cite random 'philosophers' for little reason.
I wasn't citing a random philosopher for little reason. I was citing one particular philosopher because I was having a discussion about his moral system with a friend of mine.

If it's the thought and not the person you're interested, then don't mention the person because he becomes irrelevant unless he's got a string of really good ideas, and even then it's unneccesary to name his ideas after him.That would be just as silly as talking about a bunch of songs by Group X and not mentioning Group X at all.