[wali]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kugino /img/forum/go_quote.gif kant is "weird"?!?! that's funny. i guess you haven't read much kant...he's arguably the most important philosopher in the last two centuries...i'm glad that you're smart enough to "make fun" of kant you don't sound as though you understand kant's categorical imperative very well, but kantian ethics are actually somewhat easier to defend than utilitarianism and i think more people would lean toward a kantian perspective of ethics than utilitarianism if you wanted to categorize things... you may not agree with kant's view on moral obligations to animals, but think about why he argues that way. how is kant's view of animals different than singer's? that is one of the main differences between the two and their moral views on how animals should be treated are easily understood.

The Kantian ethics based on the idea of "good will" and performing an act not for its consequent but rather for its intent is religious dogma hiding behind philosophy. Kant is a priest in the guise of a philosopher. There is nothing wrong with that, but his ethics system feels out-dated - a moral act done for its own sake - talk about extreme self-righteousness

 

[Genetic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wali /img/forum/go_quote.gif The Kantian ethics (...) but his ethics system feels out-dated -(...)

As I was eating my toasts this morning I was reading: «Speech's Ethics as Responsibility's Ethics: a Postmetaphysical Transformation of the Kantian Ethics» (Opel) and I said to myself...humm....I need more peanut butter....

OK. who said that in soon 2007 someone is still a 100% a Kantian orthodox?
Kant's body of work has the merit to be the foundation of countless
«adaptations» in major modern philosophy.

Amicalement

 

[markl]

Quote:

Immanual Kant was a real pissant Who was very rarely stable Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar Who could think you under the table David Hume could out consume Schopenhauer and Hegel And Wittgenstein was a beery swine Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel There's nothing Nietzche couldn't teach ya 'Bout the raising of the wrist Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed John Stuart Mill, of his own free will On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill Plato they say, could stick it away Half a crate of whiskey every day Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle Hobbes was fond of his dram And Rene' Descartes was a drunken fart "I drink, therefore I am" Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed A lovely little thinker But a bugger when he's pissed

 

[socrates63]

For those of you (me included) who hadn't come across Bruces' Philosophers Song until markl's post...
wikipedia entry
Monty Python performance of Bruces' Song on youtube

 

[eyeresist]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Czilla9000 /img/forum/go_quote.gif No....because in the process you would be violating the individual rights of a million people.

Hmm... I would argue that those individual rights could collectively be described as the "common good". But we probably shouldn't go any further with this, what with politics being a banned topic.

 

[ATAT]

Quote:

Originally Posted by eyeresist /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hmm... I would argue that those individual rights could collectively be described as the "common good". But we probably shouldn't go any further with this, what with politics being a banned topic.

Actaully, your orignal statment doesn't make any sense. How does believing in individual rights and liberty lead to killing a million people? The statment
"I believe individual rights and liberties supercede the common good." would imply the opposite. One should reject calls to common good (such as killing a million people) if it harms individual rights (which it does).

Oh and this isn't politics, it's morality and philosophy.

 

[eyeresist]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATAT /img/forum/go_quote.gif Actaully, your orignal statment doesn't make any sense. How does believing in individual rights and liberty lead to killing a million people? The statment "I believe individual rights and liberties supercede the common good." would imply the opposite. One should reject calls to common good (such as killing a million people) if it harms individual rights (which it does). Oh and this isn't politics, it's morality and philosophy.

Libertarianism is a political philosophy.

If individual rights and liberties should supercede the common good, then logically the individual should be able to act against the interests of the common good. I think you must mean that the individual shouldn't be forced to act for the common good, whereas your wording suggests the individual may act against the common good.

If the libertarian individual is not permitted to act against individual rights, then that individual should neither be allowed to act against the rights of the commons.

 

[ATAT]

Quote:

Originally Posted by eyeresist /img/forum/go_quote.gif Libertarianism is a political philosophy. If individual rights and liberties should supercede the common good, then logically the individual should be able to act against the interests of the common good. I think you must mean that the individual shouldn't be forced to act for the common good, whereas your wording suggests the individual may act against the common good. If the libertarian individual is not permitted to act against individual rights, then that individual should neither be allowed to act against the rights of the commons.

You're kidding right?

1. Utilitarianism, not libertarianism. I don't know when utilitarianism became a political philosophy.. it's a moral framework last I reacall

Also, for whatever nontrivial part of your response,

Semantics, not acting for and acting against the common good are similar. The point is that ANY philosophy would prevent the killing of a million people, regardless of whether or not it is in the interest of common good. Util would indicate that one shoudl kill a million if it saves a million and one. Kant would argue one cannot kill a million because one would violate the categorical imperative (i.e. individual rights of those million)

 

[eyeresist]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATAT /img/forum/go_quote.gif 1. Utilitarianism, not libertarianism. I don't know when utilitarianism became a political philosophy.. it's a moral framework last I reacall

This is what prompted my original interjection:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Czilla9000 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm anti-utilitarian. I believe individual rights and liberties supercede the common good. ie... I don't think you can usurp the freedom of others in the name of the common good. True...but they shouldn't be forced by government to sacrifice. I don't believe in compulsatory service. It's called slavery.

Czilla9000 is arguing against utilitarianism from a libertarian position. I criticised his assertion that "individual rights and liberties supercede the common good." As I've previously stated, I don't think this is precisely what he meant - and indeed he clarifies this in his next sentence. I was simply riffing on the loose meaning on his original statement.


Quote:

Originally Posted by ATAT /img/forum/go_quote.gif Semantics, not acting for and acting against the common good are similar.

That's debatable! Is not giving money to a beggar similar to running him down and setting him on fire? (Please pardon the rather grotesque analogy.)
Quote:

Originally Posted by ATAT /img/forum/go_quote.gif The point is that ANY philosophy would prevent the killing of a million people, regardless of whether or not it is in the interest of common good.

Vid. Communist and Nazi philosophies.

 

[dhp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by eyeresist /img/forum/go_quote.gif That's debatable! Is not giving money to a beggar similar to running him down and setting him on fire? (Please pardon the rather grotesque analogy.)

You could flip the two around and it would still fit