A murder goes to see Kant and wants to kill his son playing somewhere

>>8391312
Ayn would probably demand a payment then sellout her son I mean family is a spook anyway

>>8391454
Not if she values her son more than money.

Who would breed that "thing"?

Only thing worse than an ugly woman, is a right wing woman

>>8391528
>liberals value human life more than money
good one

eeeeeeeeeeeeeehhhhhhhhhhhh

>>8391533
She had a lot of sex in her life.
Besides, that is beyond the question.

Is this scenario correct.

>>8391312
Kant just can not respond

Replace ayn with Stirner

>>8391534
>Any Rand
>Liberal
Pseud detected.

File: murder-of-crows.jpg (46KB, 600x418px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 600x418px

>>8391312
>a murder goes to see

Jesus Christ how horrifying.

since when do people have duty to tell the truth? or even say anything at all.

kant would also be telling the truth if he told the murder that he would like him not to kill his son

>>8391593
Since we tried to be more than our nature

>>8391584
Libertarians are classical liberals senpai. Anything that sits in the Left side of the National Assembly is liberal, lefty.

>>8391588
I meant murderer.

>>8391572
Not universilizable, his duty to the moral law demands he tell the truth

>>8391593
Read Kant senpfam. He himself says lying is always morally wrong since it can't be universalized. Conditionally it might seem okay but it conflicts with the categorical imperative if it's unable to be univerzalized.

>>8391623
Then who the fuck is on the right? The fascists? The directions have changed since 19th century, my man

>>8391621
futile....
just accept what you are. Otherwise you're just searching for ego enhancing sense of self that relies on being "dutiful" to whatever the fuck that is usually decided by society and only exists to get resources out of you.

kant doesn't know that the murderer is a murderer. they don't wear special badges and nothing indicates he told kant "let me know where you son is so i can kill him" -- that is just what the narrator says his purpose was

also kant doesn't know the precise location of his son

>>8391643
But I'm not a good-for-nothing lying ape, anon.

Also, accept what you are sounds a bit too much like hippie noble savage bullshit. Don't accept what you are, create what you want to be. That's also what civilization is about.

>>8391584
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

Educate yourself american retard, liberalism is a pro-freemarket ideology

>>8391652
>sounds a bit too much like hippie noble savage bullshit
I got some ad hominem too
So you see yourself as a civilized man, I see that your ego is too far gone already. Chase asceticism all you want, you still need to eat and shit like the rest of them.

>>8391668
It's not an ad hominem. Noble savage is wrong not because it is ugly, but because it is untrue. You know nothing about me so I see no reason to respond regarding my ego. And believing in principles such as "lying is wrong" is not asceticism.

>>8391638
The directions are wrong and I will fight La Montagne until the king is restored or a bonaparte

>>8391647
>kant doesn't know that the murderer is a murderer.
The murderer says he's going to murder his son.
Kant knows the precise location of his son.

Do not wiggle out of this. Kant cannot plea ignorance as a way out.

>>8391623
gross

>>8391692
August Insurrection was utterly disgusting, I agree

That's not how the categorical imperative works.

>>8391690
from the wording in OP that isn't made clear at all

and no it's impossible for kant to know the precise location of his son unless he can see him and point him out. "playing somewhere in the yard" isn't very precise and this is based on what kant knows is last to be true, i.e. perhaps he saw his son playing in the yard but kant has left the vicinity so would not know the actual location of his son who could have left the yard by the time the murderer asks kant where he is; but if he was still in the vicinity then why would the murderer ask him (in the same vicinity) where is his son? this hypothetical doesn't bend the laws of what is possible purely because the proposition says something to be true, such as kant magically knows his son's location despite having no actual verification of the location at the point the murderer asks him for that information

also loving one's son has nothing to do with acting morally. directing a murderer to the location of one's son so he could be murdered is not sufficient evidence that the parent has done so out of a lack of love, especially if there is another reason for which he has acted in this way, i.e. on a moral basis

>>8391719
>it's impossible for kant to know the precise location of his son unless he can see him and point him out. "playing somewhere in the yard" isn't very precise and this is based on what kant knows is last to be true, i.e. perhaps he saw his son playing in the yard but kant has left the vicinity so would not know the actual location of his son who could have left the yard by the time the murderer asks kant where he is; but if he was still in the vicinity then why would the murderer ask him (in the same vicinity) where is his son? this hypothetical doesn't bend the laws of what is possible purely because the proposition says something to be true, such as kant magically knows his son's location despite having no actual verification of the location at the point the murderer asks him for that information
I don't see how not knowing the precise location of his son change anything. His son is playing in the neighbor's yard. Telling his location will likely result in his death. Is this similar to Hume's empiricism where because you don't know the cause and effect that it's unlikely to happen?

>>8391719
I mean, do you need his exact longitude and latitude? Or to be able to directly point him to know 100% that telling the truth will cause his death?

>>8391769
>>8391773

>His son is playing in the neighbor's yard.

kant doesn't know that if he can't verify his son is in the yard.

did you even read my post? i've already covered this.

>>8391773
>telling the truth will cause his death?

kant isn't a consequentialist. arguing along the lines of consequentialism is missing the point entirely

>>8391584
Ayn Rand is as liberal as it gets, her entire "ideology" is based around accommodating liberalism.

>>8391312
Your sentence structure is garbage. This is a nightmare to read. Did you even proofread this?

>>8391827
Not really. It's only after I looked at it again that I noticed how horribly it was structured.

>>8391588
why is that one crow laying down?

>>8391719
who cares faggot
the point is that Kant would have to tell the murderer where his son is.

>>8391811
Then why act like Kant is completely ignorant as though he doesn't know how cause and effect work a priori?

>>8391804
You should be the poster boy for why philosophy has become a synonym for pointless speculation. Autistic levels of pedantry.

>>8391845
he can't tell him something he doesn't know

>>8391849
because deontology is not consequentialism. kant can't actually know for sure what that consequences would be. it has nothing to do with his argument.

>>8391850
wondering about consequences is pointless speculation. i'm sorry that you don't quite get formal logic

imagine a world where every men let murderers kill their son. it would be terrible. kant has a moral obligation to try to stop the murderer

>>8391852
are you autistic?

>>8391852
>kant can't actually know for sure what that consequences would be.
Really? He can't know for sure that a murderer looking for his son going to the last known assured location of his son won't cause his death?
So you're telling me that because Kant isn't 100% sure that the surefire murderer won't find his son playing in the neighbor's yard, it's fine to tell the truth? He can't lie because he must uphold his duty to always tell the truth no matter what. Does Kant value upholding his deontology over the life of his son?

While Ayn Rand, who doesn't want to risk it, just uses her rationality to be on the safe side and lies to protect her son just in case because she values her son over her value of always telling the truth.

>>8391873
But imagine a world where every man lied! It would be even worse!

>>8391632
>He himself says lying is always morally wrong since it can't be universalized.
He was being a bit idealistic, we're goal oriented creatures, we will do what we believe will get us to our end goal. If his goal was that he doesn't want his son to die, and he values that end goal above himself feeling morally superior then he might just lie. Or keep his mouth shut to avoid the dilemma.

>>8391881
no i can just follow an argument even if i don't agree with it. are you?

>>8391885
>He can't know for sure that a murderer looking for his son going to the last known assured location of his son won't cause his death?

no. is he psychic?

>>8391852
>he can't tell him something he doesn't know
Kant knows the last location of his son which, while not 100% absolute certain he's in the neighbor's yard since Kant cannot see him directly, is still objectively where the son is narratively.

>>8391885
He can't be 100% sure, but still very close to 100% so it doesn't matter

>>8391903
>no i can just follow an argument even if i don't agree with it. are you?
maybe you can stop shitting up the thread

>>8391912
So because Kant isn't 100% sure, he's just going to risk putting his son in danger?

>>8391904
yeah but the narrative is saying that kant knows for sure where his son is because he has magical powers since there is no other possible way for kant to know where his son is even if the narrative says. the narrative may as well suggest that his son is also a dog.

>>8391915
He has to tell the murderer even if he is 100% sure

>>8391914
that's what you have been doing because you don't know how deontology works even though it's the subject of this thread. what are you doing here other than to make snide remarks towards people who know more than you? do you just want memes so you can join in? you're a big guy.

>>8391920
>Hello I am murderer, where is your son? I want to kill him :3
>He is playing in da neighbour's yard.
>Uh, thank you but can I have the exact coordinates of his location? I can not find him otherwise
>No I don't have a tracking system
>Damn, looks like I won't be murdering today....

>>8391920
I guess that's a fault of the narration, let me correct it.
The narrative knows that the son is 100% in the yard but Kant doesn't know. He only knows that it's where he last saw his son play and where he likely is since he has no knowledge of his son having left the location.

>>8391925
assuming that's my only post

>>8391921
The murderer doesn't care if Kant isn't sure. The reason the murderer is asking Kant is because he saw the son and Kant together before he went to see Kant. All he's asking Kant is where he is (or where Kant think he is) where Kant has to tell the truth.

>>8391915
that has nothing to do with it. if the narrative said 'kant tells the murderer to the best of his knowledge where his son is' then it would make more sense but the narrative is being lazy and illogical. kant doesn't "know" where his son is just because the narrative says, since knowing in this case is a posteriori knowledge. sons and neighbours' yards are not linked a priori

>>8391935
for you

>>8391929
how does kant know he is a murderer? because the murderer says "i am a murderer"? lol

>>8391943
Maybe he can see into his neighbour's yard.

>>8391953
He has put up ads on the town board (with a picture of his face) and Kant has seen them

>>8391956
maybe

>>8391682
>Noble savage is wrong not because it is ugly, but because it is untrue
You (or Kant for that matter) fail to present to me why the truth is inherently good. I don't think his son dying is a bad thing either, but I assume Kant as an ape in clothing wants his genetics to carry on, and very willing to take away from the murderers rational decision making by lying to him to get the out come Kant himself desires.

> You know nothing about me so I see no reason to respond regarding my ego.
As you said yourself you don't want your persona to be that of an ape, which seems you equate to being undisciplined and ruled by nature, basically your Id, you can see how your ego is being revealed by your desires to rise above your nature.

>>8391960
and how does he know that the murderer is in fact going to murder his son?

>>8391588
>>8391827
I honestly thought this was pasta / bait with poor English engineered into it specifically designed to trigger grammar Nazis.

I was impressed until I learned it was a genuine effort.

Now, my heart weeps.

>>8391533
>le left right dichotomy

Retard detected

>>8391966
Kant ordered the murder himself

>>8391963
Immanuel Kant's theory of ethics is considered deontological for several different reasons.[9][10] First, Kant argues that to act in the morally right way, people must act from duty (deon).[11] Second, Kant argued that it was not the consequences of actions that make them right or wrong but the motives of the person who carries out the action.

Kant's argument that to act in the morally right way one must act purely from duty begins with an argument that the highest good must be both good in itself and good without qualification.[12] Something is "good in itself" when it is intrinsically good, and "good without qualification", when the addition of that thing never makes a situation ethically worse. Kant then argues that those things that are usually thought to be good, such as intelligence, perseverance and pleasure, fail to be either intrinsically good or good without qualification. Pleasure, for example, appears not to be good without qualification, because when people take pleasure in watching someone suffer, this seems to make the situation ethically worse. He concludes that there is only one thing that is truly good:

Nothing in the world—indeed nothing even beyond the world—can possibly be conceived which could be called good without qualification except a good will.[12]

Kant then argues that the consequences of an act of willing cannot be used to determine that the person has a good will; good consequences could arise by accident from an action that was motivated by a desire to cause harm to an innocent person, and bad consequences could arise from an action that was well-motivated. Instead, he claims, a person has a good will when he 'acts out of respect for the moral law'.[12] People 'act out of respect for the moral law' when they act in some way because they have a duty to do so. So, the only thing that is truly good in itself is a good will, and a good will is only good when the willer chooses to do something because it is that person's duty, i.e. out of "respect" for the law. He defines respect as "the concept of a worth which thwarts my self-love."[13]

Would Kant also insist that a military general inform the opposing force of the location and route of his army?
No, because the general has to weigh the value of his soldier's lives and the well-being of the country he fights for against a mutual "dishonesty".
Kant would be all for you owning up to eating all of your roommate's cookies, unlike Rand.

File: 1465474529696.jpg (57KB, 960x949px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 960x949px

>>8391971

Kant is sitting in a room with three other people. Kant farts and every person in the room smell the fart at exactly the same time, including Kant. One of the other three people accompanying Kant ask, "Who farted?" Kant must tell the person enquiring into the corporeal origin of the fart that it was him who farted.

>>8391990
A braver man than me.

>>8391943
>'kant tells the murderer to the best of his knowledge where his son is'
Well I guess, it is a fault of the narration. Let me rewrite the scenario.

Kant's son was last seen by Kant playing somewhere in the yard a few minutes ago. Kant can't see him right now but he's pretty sure he's still there since it's the last place he saw him recently. A murderer comes and asks where is the son so that he might kill him. Kant has seen him on the news as a crazed murderer who is sought after by the police. Although it can always just be someone who just really really looks like the murderer Kant saw on TV. Kant can't know for sure at 100% that his son is playing in the yard but he tells him anyways the location of his son because he cannot lie out of duty to never lying. God, seeing everything, knows that the the kid is actually still playing in the yard, even if Kant doesn't know he's still there.The murderer, knowing that Kant always tells the truth, goes to the yard and finds the son. killing him.


Ayn Rand's son was last seen by Ayn Rand playing somewhere in the yard a few minutes ago. She can't see him but she's pretty sure he's still there since it's the last place she saw him recently. A murderer comes and asks where is the son so that he might kill him. Ayn Rand has seen him on the news as a crazed murderer who is sought after by the police. Although it can always just be someone who just really really looks like the murderer Ayn Rand saw on TV, she can't be sure. Ayn Rand can't know for sure at 100% that her son is playing in the yard since he might have ran off somewhere else. However, Ayn Rand uses her rationality and assess the situation. Although she always tells the truth and highly values being truthful, she values her son more than lying, and so tell the murderer that her son is a few blocks away. God, seeing everything, knows that the the kid is actually still playing in the yard, even if Ayn Rand doesn't know he's still there. The murderer, knowing that Ayn Rand highly values being truthful, believes her and goes across the street and does not find him. This allows Ayn Rand to find her son and hide him.

Kant does not love his son and told a murderer where to find him because he had to always tell the truth
Ayn Rand loves her son and protected him from getting killed by lying, even if she always tells the truth.

Kant told the truth out of duty.
Ayn Rand told a lie out of individualism and selfishness

Is this correct?

>>8391977
>Pleasure, for example, appears not to be good without qualification, because when people take pleasure in watching someone suffer, this seems to make the situation ethically worse.
>Nothing in the world—indeed nothing even beyond the world—can possibly be conceived which could be called good without qualification except a good will.[12]
It seems ethically worse to help a murderer cause suffering just out of sheer desire to express good will, in order for kant to feel like he is in accordance to moral law.
Also depending on what moral law you follow it is also not "good will" to aid a murderer in locating his victim, I'd venture to say it'd be "morally correct" to protect the probable victim.

Kant is a faggot. As much as i'd enjoy having this bitch be wrong, unfortunately in this Scenario, she seems quite right. Yay for universal ethic' systemas.

boom boom boom

File: Ayn Rand+.png (739KB, 643x800px) Image search: [Google]

739KB, 643x800px

>>8392023
Ayn Rand 1
Kant 0

A murderer goes to Rand's house and asks where her son is so he can kill him

>Fucking soviets! This is why i fled russia. Fuck you, Stalin

>>8392020
he's not willing a murderer to kill his son

>>8392032
He's not preventing it either. I guess Kant doesn't love his son as much as his duty to always tell the truth.

>>8392037
>He's not preventing it either.

so?

>I guess Kant doesn't love his son as much as his duty to always tell the truth.

irrelevant

>>8392045
>so?
Ahhh so what if he's not trying anything to prevent his son's death, keeping your duty to always tell the truth is what matters! I mean you 100% can't be sure where's the son, so there's no risk, right? I mean, I'm not a consequentialist, so it doesn't matter if my son happens to be in the same spot he was last seen. I didn't do anything bad because I didn't know my actions would absolutely cause the death of my son. It's morally just to always tell the truth and let your son potentially get killed!

>irrelevant
It's irrelevant that Kant would've let his son get killed? That's cold.
Let's see what Ayn Rand has to say on the concept of duty.

>One of the most destructive anti-concepts in the history of moral philosophy is the term “duty.”

>It's an anti-concept that is an artificial, unnecessary and rationally unusable term designed to replace and obliterate some legitimate concept. The term “duty” obliterates more than single concepts; it is a metaphysical and psychological killer: it negates all the essentials of a rational view of life and makes them inapplicable to man’s actions.

>The meaning of the term “duty” is the moral necessity to perform certain actions for no reason other than obedience to some higher authority, without regard to any personal goal, motive, desire or interest.

It does seem to be what Kan't doing with Universality. Ignoring his rationality that the guy he saw on TV that looks exactly like a murderer sought after by the police is at his home asking where's Kan't son so that he can kill him. And because Kan't isn't 100% sure, he doesn't have to use his rationality because he doesn't care about his son. There's a insane chance that perhaps his son went to play somewhere else, so why bother lying? Imagine if everyone in society lied, no one could trust truth! It's, Kant's duty to always tell the truth or else all of society will crumble.
Always telling the truth is more important than his own son's life, right?

>>8392032
Depends what you define as "moral law". If lying is bad then why is allowing and aiding in murder okay?
Kant is selfish either way. His desire to act ethically and not lie is a selfish endeavor to feel morally correct (premise of which is in question as noted above) and he sacrifices his son for it. If he does lie then he is going against his own beliefs in order to get the outcome he desires.
Depends which he values more, his son or his moral superiority, which is all contrived and subjective, and not "good" in any real way except in how he personally views himself and humanity.

>>8392058
>Depends which he values more, his son or his moral superiority,
Exactly, a hierarchy of values, as Ayn Rand describes it. But the problem is worse because due of his duty to Universality, Kant will be forced select his moral superiority over the life of his son. Kant might have greatly loved his son but the moment he was demanded to tell the truth, he potentially put his son at risked of being killed. All while hoping that perhaps his son went somewhere else than the last place he was last seen.

>>8392055
>I didn't do anything bad because I didn't know my actions would absolutely cause the death of my son.

yeah that's the basis of it. i mean you can say 'but consequences' all you want but it still won't be relevant since the consequences are speculative, based on information that may or may not even be truthful. they don't factor into the choice.

this kant son murder thing is obviously thought up by someone unfamiliar with kant's ideas. there is no holistic interpretation, just memes

>>8392058
the key word is 'will'. aiding and allowing are not willing.

>His desire to act ethically and not lie is a selfish endeavor to feel morally correct

i don't think 'feeling' and 'desiring' are relevant. intrinsic good isn't based on what one feels as good

>>8392073
So upholding the truth from his duty to universality is truly more important than the consequence of potentially losing his son?

>this kant son murder thing is obviously thought up by someone unfamiliar with kant's ideas.
It's just a small twist of the old thought experiment. If some random person tells Kant that he wants to murder some other random person, Kant will tell the truth and it won't really matter because Kant has no personal attachment to this random person who might be killed. And Kant can wiggle out of feeling bad from accomplishing his duties to always tell the truth because perhaps the person the murderer is looking for is gone, or the authorities will stop him after Kant makes a phone call. It's very easy to show apathy towards someone you don't really know getting killed.

But if you change the scenario to something more empathetic, someone closer to Kant than a random stranger, it shows shows his lack of rationality when the proximity of damage is extremely close, and the veil of darkness in causality is minimal. When simply because Kant isn't 100% certain, he shuts off his mind.

Ayn Rand shows rationality.
Kant shows that he's an inhuman robot, following his duty and nothing more.

>>8392093
more important? more rational

>But if you change the scenario to something more empathetic

i.e. more emotional, less rational

>... it shows shows his lack of rationality

the exact opposite is true. it demonstrates an adherence to rational principles, as in those derived through logic, which are separate from the consequences.

Why is it assumed that Ayn Rand's desire to preserve her son's life is caused by selfishness? Suppose the murderer asked Rand which way the guy in the blue shirt went because he wants to murder than blue-shirted man, then Rand lied to mislead the murderer. Would that necessarily be out of selfishness for the same mysterious reason? Why cannot empathy by the reason in both cases?

>>8392089
>i don't think 'feeling' and 'desiring' are relevant. intrinsic good isn't based on what one feels as good

That is exactly what I'm questioning, the premise that always telling the truth is intrinsically good. And because I don't accept this concept I put forth that Kant is acting on his feelings and desires to be "civilized" through practicing "good will".

>>8392112
Because if Ayn Rand didn't give a shit about her son, she would've told the murderer where to find him. She would have felt apathetic to his death and let him die. Not out a sense of duty like Kant, but because she doesn't care. Ayn Rand gains happiness from having her son around however, she also values telling the truth above all else, so it becomes a sacrifice to break her stance to always be truthful for the sake of her son that gives her happiness.

>Suppose the murderer asked Rand which way the guy in the blue shirt went because he wants to murder than blue-shirted man, then Rand lied to mislead the murderer.
If there is nothing to gain, Ayn Rand would probably do whatever, though she would likely lie to protect his right to live.

>Why cannot empathy by the reason in both cases?
Because you feel more empathy for your own blood than a stranger, and it has more impact that way.

>>8392114
Here's a fun proposition, is it good to tell the truth about everything which may hurt a person? Universality says that if everyone told the truth which hurt everyone, it would be bad.
Therefore telling the truth is intrinsically bad.

Isn't universality based on consequentialism?
Kant posits that lying is bad because it devalues the truth, but isn't the opposite true, that lying can cause harm, therefore it's good to tell the truth? Kant accepts that telling the truth is intrinsically good because it's good without any real reason, but isn't the reason he thinks so simply because of the consequenses of lying?

>>8391970
>le there's no right and left meme

Super retard detected.

>>8392121
I'm having trouble with 'empathy' being equated to 'self interest.' If Rand is protecting her son out of empathy for her son, that does not necessitate that she has self interest in protecting her son.

If we say that Rand empathizes with her son, we can say that if Rand's son is happy, then Rand is generally happier for it. And if Rand's son is sad, then Rand is generally sadder for it. And if Rand's son is sad, then Rand wants to make her son happy.

Now comes the question, does Rand seek to alleviate the sadness in her son because, due to the empathetic bond, it will alleviate the sadness in her, or does she seek to alleviate the sadness in her son because, due to the empathetic bond, she feels inexplicably compelled to concern herself with another's well-being?

I know that there is a distinction in here somewhere because there's a bittersweet pang when your best friend announces that he's moving to a far off place to get a fresh new start on life, and there's a very different feeling of concern when you learn that a different far away friend is in distress.

>>8391836
He was murdered.

>>8391889

Hah

>>8391901
That's not Kantian ethics senpai

>>8392209
Perhaps empathy isn't the correct word, but she saving her son out of love. And Ayn Rand argues that love is selfish because it is placed higher than your other virtues.

>she feels inexplicably compelled to concern herself with another's well-being?
Yes and no. While there is a collective empathy for another well-being that you don't know, unless they benefit you in some way, people don't care. Do you care for a bum in the streets? Do you care about a kid in Africa dying?

Because Ayn Rand loves her son and highly values him either because she wants to use him to be happier or for other gain, it is considered selfish.

Just read more of Kant. There's a pretty simple little fact that proves that his ethics aren't that fucking simple that no one can ever do anything "bad":

Kant supported capital punishment.

>>8392960
I don't see how capital punishment has anything to do with the scenario of Kant telling a murderer where to find his son and not caring because of his obligation to duty.
Ayn Rand also supported capital punishment.

>>8392968
Well, the same ethics that "don't allow him to lie" can't exactly allow a murder, no? Yet Kant allows capital punishment.

Thus, there must be more to his ethics than "don't do dis, its your duty"

>>8391632
Saying: "I'm not going to tell you" or not responding is universalizable. Did you even understand the CI? Universalizing it doesn't create a contradiction at all. Not telling the truth (i.e. not saying anything or stating you will not say) =/= lying. Lying is done when you actively try to decieve someone. In this case Kant would not be trying to decieve him.

>>8392012
Kant's categorical imperative can't be used to tell us what to do, only what not to do. Let me explain:
universalize telling the truth, will that make a better world in all possible circumstances, no, you've proved it. So Kant told the truth contra to his own philosophy.
Furthermore, all you're doing is pointing out competing categorical imperatives, one to tell the truth and one to not kill, the overlap invalidates the duty, yeah yeah yeah fuck you
Lastly, universally not telling lies (good) does not mean universally telling the truth. Under Kant, we do have the duty to always not tell lies because it is universal (that is to say, if everybody always told lies, the universe wouldn't work) but, (still under Kant) we do NOT have the duty to always tell the truth (you've proved it, sir)
In a sentence, under the categorical imperative, we have the duty to always not tell lies, but we do not have the duty to always tell the truth. So if somebody asks you a direct question, there are obviously more than two options (telling the truth or lying). How you tell the truth, how you lie, staying silent, or misdirecting, could all be viable options. Which ones do we have the duty to do? Well, none specifically, because first we would have to prove that under the condition of being asked a direct question that all possible options other than only one possible option are immoral according to the categorical imperative. So maybe you can see why under Kant we can only derive immoral acts that we have the duty not to do, and not moral acts that we have the duty to do.

>>8392093
Ayn Rand actually tells the murderer where her boy is to teach the boy a good lesson. Of course she expects her son to overcome the adversity, mums on whether she taught the boy any self-defense.

>>8393204
You're not speaking. Universalizing not speaking is contradictory because then people can no longer interact or communicate with each other. At least understand the implications of what you say.

>>8393813
in that case absolutely nothing is possible to universalize

I mean, if you take it like that, anything taken to the extreme end of universalization is impossible

>>8393879
Congratulations you've graduated from deontological ethics.

>>8393308
>Ayn Rand actually tells the murderer where her boy is to teach the boy a good lesson.
So she values giving him a life lesson over his safety? Either way, she's not telling the truth out of absolute duty, but out of rationality.
Ayn Rand uses her brain, assessed the situation and used it as an adversity for her son. All while Kant just blindly tells the truth out of duty without a single thought.

Although that scenario makes fun of absolute selfishness, Ayn Rand is still more humane than Kant.

>>8394166
>Either way, she's not telling the truth out of absolute duty, but out of rationality.
Oups, she's telling the truth* not out of absolute duty but out of rationality.

FALSE: Rand would've already sold her son into slavery.

>>8394184
That would go against his rights. If she did not want a son, she wouldn't have been selfish enough to conceive him.

>>8391312
No it is not correct. STOP writing "where's his son" and "where's her son," for Christ's sake. Are you an ESL student? "Kant knows where is his son"--does that look like a fucking interrogative statement to you, monkey-boy? No? Then put the fucking "is at the end of the fucking sentence where it fucking belongs.
Kant knows where his son is.
Ayn Rand knows where her son is.
OP does not know where his ass is.

>>8394204
English isn't my first language.

>>8394204
What do you think of >>8392012 instead?

File: AynRand00.jpg (22KB, 300x476px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 300x476px

Pfft. You want a scenario with Ayn Rand? Listen:
Alisa Rosenbaum (later Ayn Rand, right girl in photo) and Olga Nabokov (younger sister of the author), were best friends attending a prestigious St. Petersburg all-girls school, Stoiunina Gymnasium together, and inseparable. It is possible that their early sexual awakenings resulted in tween lesbian experimentation that was witnessed or heard about by Olga's brother Vladimir (four years older, so he was12-16 when the girls were 9-12). He goes on to write of incest between siblings aged 12-14 (Van, Ada, Lucette), and sexual games between 12 year-old Lolita, her friend Barbara, and a youth named Charlie at summer camp.
tl/dr: Maybe Lolita and Ada are in some part based on young Ayn Rand sexing Nabokov's little sister.

>>8394352
I don't see your point.

>>8391312
>Is this correct /lit/?
No. The categorical imperative does not apply to such situations and Ayn Rand hated children. Fucking moochers.

>>8394461
If the Categorical imperative does not apply to 'such' situations, how it be applied universally?
>Ayn Rand hated children. Fucking moochers.
So what? Kant never even had sex.

itt: people talking about cunts

>>8391312
Kant could also refuse to answer the question holy shit why is this still a meme.

>>8394360
My point is that if we're going to imagine absurd scenarios with Ayn Rand, I prefer my idea--and it's much more plausible, since Kant and Rand never had kids, but Rand did spend lots of time in Nabokov House with Olga as a tween.

>>8394598
See >>8393813
You cannot Universalize not talking because then no one can talk to anyone else.

>>8394680
No, I get your scenario, but what does it have to do with Kant or Ayn Rand's moral system?

File: Ayn+Rand-.png (238KB, 348x371px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 348x371px

And if keeping your mouth shut was always an answer, why didn't Kant give that answer in the original scenario?
Oh right, because it's his duty to always tell the truth. His duty to not think at all and potentially put his son at risk.

>>8391312
>Is this correct /lit/?
It's impossible to tell, since you obviously don't understand English. Perhaps you should be posting on a board in which the posters write and think in your native language. Otherwise, you're not going to be able to fully understand the language or the philosophy of any responses

>>8395940
While I miswrote the scenario horribly, how does >>8392012 fare instead?
And it's not as if it's so poorly written to the point where you don't understand the meaning of the scenario itself.

>>8395532
>You cannot Universalize not talking because then no one can talk to anyone else.

Kant states that he wont reveal what he knows/ he will not reveal that information out of love for his son

problem solved

>>8393813

You can universalize not speaking of someone to another who wants to kill that someone.

>>8395959
>Kant states that he wont reveal what he knows/ he will not reveal that information out of love for his son
You can't universalize not revealing information out of love for X.

>>8395961
That's not what universalizing means. You take a smaller instance and apply it to the most universal application of it. You're talking about not speaking, the specific conditions of the case pertaining to you not speaking aren't all that important.

>>8395955
Why are you assuming that the murderer has the ability to kill the kid?

I read somewhere that Kant said he would tell the murderer the truth and it isn't his fault if the murderer kills someone. So yes, you're correct, op, don't know about Ayn Rand though.

File: Ayn Rand has seen hell.png (45KB, 252x148px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 252x148px

>>8396020
Why are you assuming that the murderer doesn't have the ability to kill the kid?
If news on the TV has shown the murderer's face as a person who's killed people before, on what grounds do you assume he does not have the ability to murder the kid?
Rationally, you would assume he has the potential to murderer the kid and will be able to do so. Simply because there is no confirmation that murderer will murder the kid with a 100% certainty does not mean the kid will not be in danger or that he likely will not die.

This is funny because you're essentially just giving Hume's empiricism as an excuse. You can't connect the cause and effect of the murderer going to kill the child with a 100% certainty without being psychic, so why even think?

Let's look at it one step at a time.

The murderer looks like the guy on TV that is wanted by the police on the count of murdering someone. Now obviously perhaps they just look alike, maybe the murderer has a twin brother who looks just like him!
And the murder says he will murder the kid. Why, that's just silly, what if he's just going to talk to the kid and play trains? What if 'murder the kid' is just code for 'playing with the kid'? You just can't know for sure!
But now what about the kid? How can we know for sure that he's still in the garden? He might have gone to the neighborhood alley or in some other home. Kant only knows where the kid was a few minutes ago, there's no guarantee that the kid is still in the yard.
And now we come to you. You ask how throughout all this, from the point of the murderer asking Kant where the kid is, to the point where he's about to murderer his kid, you question that it's possible that the murderer won't kill the kid because he doesn't have the ability. I mean, there's always the possibility of the kid running away or even overpowering the murder. The murderer might be entirely incompetent!

It's funny how Kant says he's solved Hume's problems yet when people defend Kant, they keep explaining that you can't know for sure anything, that you can predict cause and effect so you should stop thinking entirely.
It's only when Kant is exactly within the chain of cause and effect, when he points directly at his son that will cause his death, that is it's bad for Kant to tell a murderer what to do.

>>8396022
>it's not Kant's fault he let a murderer kill his son
>hey man, I didn't do anything wrong, I just told this murderer where to find my son when he told me he would kill him
>I'm free from any guilt that a murderer killed my son, my moral authority makes me blameless because of my duty

>Kant was of the opinion that man is his own law (autonomy) - that is, he binds himself under the law which he himself gives himself. Actually, in a profounder sense, this is how lawlessness or experimentation are established. This is not being rigorously earnest any more than Sancho Panza's self-administered blows to his own bottom were vigorous. ... Now if a man is never even once willing in his lifetime to act so decisively that [a lawgiver] can get hold of him, well, then it happens, then the man is allowed to live on in self-complacent illusion and make-believe and experimentation, but this also means: utterly without grace.
Were were you when based Kierkegaard eviscerated Kant?

>>8395955
Well, you're trying to take 8000 pages of philosophy and turn it into a black and white scenario that can be summarized in a yes or a no

This isn't a worthwhile exercise if you want to actually learn something. You're assuming that either Kant or Rand follow their own philosophy, that honesty is something they had rigid, binary thoughts on, and that it's a good idea to take a philosophical scenario and make it personal. If you asked Ghandi if he believed in execution, he'd probably say no, but if you then point to his raped, murdered daughter and asked him what should be done with the murderer, he'd probably ask for five minutes alone with him and a hammer

>>8396152
How am I summarizing it?
All I've done is essentially give more context to an existing problem that was asked of Kant while keeping the elements intact.
Instead of making the target of the murderer, I'm replacing it with Kant's son, to show the hypocrisy of duty over human life.

When this whole murderer coming to the door scenario is brought up, people use bullshit loopholes such as ''how do you know he's a murderer?'' or ''how does Kant know where's the son, is he psychic?'', things like that.

>>8391312
Yeah that's right.

Kant's ethical system attempts to prevent any 'exceptions' to the rule because Kant asserts that humans have a tendency to view their own situation as an 'exception'

One can always invent an excuse not to be moral in any given moment. Of course, Kant's system seems ridiculous in the face of extremes, like the one OP provided.

>>8396176
>Instead of making the target of the murderer,
Making the target of the murder someone specific rather than a random person*

>>8396084
>that is, he binds himself under the law which he himself gives himself.

Let me start by saying that I don't like Kant's ethical system.

That aside, I think this is a weak refutation. While one does give oneself the moral code which to adhere, the moral code isn't setup by one's personal preferences or 'laws'.

Rather, the laws are setup by the a universal ozone principle in which one should always act as if one's actions would be adopted by everyone. If one were to commit an action that would harm the world if everyone adopted it, one should not do it. Thereby, 'lying' is strictly forbidden.

I think this is a stupid and needlessly restrictive ethical system, but I don't like Kierkegaard's refutation. The laws aren't (or shouldn't be) biased towards any given person. Rather, his system attempts to do the opposite of that.

>>8396243
*universalizing principle
Yikes, spellcheck.

>>8391312
Wouldn't it be more fitting for Kant to not respond?

The question doesn't specify that he's locked into the conversation.

>>8396342
Then why didn't Kant not give that answer when he was asked essentially the same scenario? You also cannot Universalize not talking because then no one would talk to anyone else.

>>8396342
Not engaging when presented with a moral decision is immoral according to the system

"I am under no moral obligation to provide you the location of my son as you have no satisfying reason for finding him; in fact, as per this retarded scenario, I am well aware of your murderous intentions and will notify the authorities of YOUR location. Good day."
Doesn't sound like a lie to me.

>>8396431
>as you have no satisfying reason for finding him
How is ''wanting to find your son and kill him'' not a satisfying reason to finding him?

>>8391312

Kant may believe he has an ethical duty to tell the truth, but he doesn't have an ethical duty to tell the murderer where his (Kant's) son is.

Murderer: Where is your son?
Kant: I have decided not to tell you, as I believe you will use that information to kill my son.
Murderer: Shucks. Good on you for being honest, though.

>>8396437
Because Kant is a bad father and Christian.

>>8396431
Also, why didn't Kant give this answer? Because he couldn't. If everyone chose not to answer when asked for directions to find someone, the world would turn to chaos. Kant is obliged to answer truthfully.

>>8396453
Yeah I don't think I need to explain how large of a leap every part of your statement is.

>>8396466
>Kant, if a murderer comes to your house and asks you where to find that person, will you tell the truth and tell him where to find the guy
>sure, it's not my moral authority that is in question but the murderers.
>Kant, if a murderer comes to your house and asks you where to find your son in the yard, will you tell him the truth on where to find your son
>no no no no no! I am not obliged to do so!

It's Kant's duty to answer truthfully the location.

>>8396054
> that you can predict cause and effect so you should stop thinking entirely.
huh

>>8396573
How can you know that the murderer will find the boy? Do you know that he's still in the yard? If not then I'm blameless.
How do you know that the murderer has the ability to murder the boy? Do you know with 100% certainty that he will murder the boy? If not then I'm blameless.
Do you know that the murderer is the same person on TV that is wanted for murder? It could be someone who looks like him and the guy is lying when he says he wants to kill the boy, he might just want to play with him! If you don't know for certain then I'm blameless.

The entire thread is full of this shit.

>>8396586
Are you sure they are all arguing for 'blameless'?

>>8396592
They're arguing for ignorance.
You can't know this, you can't know that.

>>8396615
Well that's because knowledge doesn't exist.

>>8396626
Go away Socrates.

>>8395535
Nothing. That topic--especially approached in this ludicrously simplified fashion--is far too boring to think about. If your point was merely to gently mock the idiocy of extreme self-imposed behavioural codes, it might have been worth joking about, but this thread is full of people taking this shit seriously.

>>8396474
The innate right to freedom is to be "authorized to do to others anything that does not in itself diminish what is theirs, so long as they do not want to accept it - such things as merely communicating his thoughts to them, telling or promising them something, whether what he says is true and sincere or untrue and insincere ... for it is entirely up to them if they want to believe him or not."
Go home people.

What an immature way to make an argument.

>>8396946
What is immature about using an established scenario used and answered by Kant while asking for clarification.

Preventing a murder must be a duty and it is universalizable. In the case of conflicting duties, surely preventing the murder must take precedence.

>>8397235

Why do you need to lie, i.e. degrade the humanity in yourself, to prevent their crime?

>>8397253
If a lie is essential in saving a life then you're fulfilling a more important duty by lying. If there's another way, then you should use it.

>>8397253
You think not preventing a murder isn't degrading the humanity in yourself, too? You know the likely consequences

>>8391312
rand probably would have told the truth trusting her son to defend himself by virtue of him being raised on her selfish philosophy also lying doesn't immediately profit ayn rand so why would she do it

>>8396243
>the moral code isn't setup by one's personal preferences or 'laws'
That's where you're wrong kiddo. People are to act according to maxims they define. People are markedly less strict with themselves than others and as a result they excuse their faults when it comes to missing the mark as compared to others. See Eichmann in Jerusalem.

> the laws are setup by the a universal ozone principle
No, the laws are put forth by people who justify them via their (flawed) reason and logic. They are not promulgated from on high by some angelic messenger.

Either way Consequentialist and Deontological ethics are both bunk.

>>8397345

There is no hierarchical ordering of duties, and strictly speaking the only duty is to the moral law. Lying is contrary to the moral law, therefore contrary to duty.

>>8397652

Again, why do you need to lie to prevent the murder? Are you incapable of barring his way physically? Of contacting the police? Of fleeing with your child?

A murder goes to see Friedrich Nietzsche and wants to kill his son playing somewhere in the neighbor's yard. Nietzsche realizes he doesn't have a son, never has. He goes into his apartment and begins weeping.

A murder goes to see Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and wants to kill his son playing somewhere in the neighbor's yard. Hegel responds that, "In my view, which must be justified by the exposition of the system itself,
everything hangs on apprehending and
expressing the true not as substance but
rather even more as subject. At the same
time, it is to be noted that substantiality
comprises within itself the universal, that
is, it comprises not only the immediacy of
knowledge but also the immediacy of
being, that is, immediacy for knowledge." The murderer gets confused and goes home.

A murderer goes to see Ralph Waldo Emerson and wants to kill his son playing somewhere in the neighbor's yard. Emerson knows where's his son. The murder asks where is his son so he can kill him. Emerson tells him so that the experience will toughen up his son and make him more self-reliant.

Are you guys autistic? If Kant was really so wrapped up in not telling a lie, he could just flat out refuse to tell him where his son is.

"Where is your son? I want to kill him."
"I am not going to tell you. Fuck off."

There is no moral duty to always do whatever anyone tells you to.

>>8398426
Then why did Kant tell a murderer where to find a guy in the original scenario?
Does the dynamic change entirely simply because his son is involved?

>"Where is this man? I want to kill him."
>''sure thing, I'll tell the truth, he's at XXXXX. I'm the authority of my own morality and it's up to someone else to stop him''.
>"Where is your son? I want to kill him."
>"I am not going to tell you. Fuck off."

File: MURDERER.png (2MB, 1392x950px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1392x950px

>"Here he is, ringing his murderer's bell"
>"14 men he killed. 14...."

>>8391620
Yeah, he could say "I'm not going to tell you because I love my son and if I tell you, he will die."

>>8399670
Kant is a deontologist, not a consequentialist.
Telling where to find someone isn't immoral.

Enjoy printing this, fag publisher

>>8399673
Kant was also an OCD autist who got triggered by one of his students missing a button on his shirt or when the clock ran wrong. In his habits, he was more machine than man. I'd take his ethics with a grain of salt.

>>8399670
Retard.

177 responses and noone has figured out how to have this take place in front of a trolley? you people dont understand the first thing about moral dilemmas.

>>8399687
That's the point, his ethics are for robots who cannot think. He follows his duty without a second thought because he's a pure deontologist which is why people try to give escapes such as maybe the kid went somewhere else or that the murderer doesn't have the ability to murder the kid.

Apparently Kant also tied his hands to his bed so that he wouldn't masturbate and always had a walk to a specific time. He was more machine than man.

I find it funny that the machine is less human than the woman promoting lack of empathy which is similar to robots.

>>8399705
I purposefully did not want to mention the trolley problem because I wanted to directly focus on the dilemma originally proposed to Kant when he was still alive.

So I guess that's it, huh? Ayn Rand is better than Kant.

>>8399687
>>8399708

>Kant was like a total sperg lol how can u even take n e thing he sez srs?????

Stupid meme, stupid ad hominem, spout from a stupid person. Stupid.

>>8401091
You misunderstand an ad hominem attack.
I am not saying he's a robot therefore his ethics are not worth agreeing to, but that because he is a pure deontologist who cannot think and does not care about the consequences, he can be viewed as a robot following his duty (programming) collectivist who cannot think.
I am saying that his ethics are similar to that of a robot who cannot think.
Which ironically is exactly the definition Ayn Rand gave of him.

Not to mention that Kant was extremely anal.

Kant was giving a general answer to a hypothetical situation to describe how the justice system should work - not an empirical description of one's own personal ethics/virtue. By lying to a murderer and giving him a false representation of reality you would be steering him onto a course of action which you have partially authored and are therefore partially responsible for. If you were to provide the murderer with the truth to the best of your knowledge you are giving him an accurate image of the world as it really is and are not responsible for the murderer's moral authority to decide whether to commit crime or not because you are not dictating his course but instead allowing him to peruse the malignant course he has decided upon. This is how a justice system should consider such cases, that one must always tell the truth unconditionally. In the scenario Kant was presented, he says that he would tell the murderer that his desired victim is holding refuge in his house, but that he would also alert the authorities and his neighbors and attempt to stop him - the most legally secure course of action.
But Kant makes it very clear that the proceedings of state law are not and should not be the projections of one's own personal set of ethics. Read the "Introduction to the Doctrine of Right" as quoted here >>8396941 Kant would say it's morally okay to say that your son is on the moon dancing with star pigeons and eating asteroid cereal.

>taking the bait

lots of undergrads in this thread

>>8401571
>he says that he would tell the murderer that his desired victim is holding refuge in his house, but that he would also alert the authorities and his neighbors and attempt to stop him - the most legally secure course of action.
So you're still essentially saying that Kant would tell the murderer where to find his son? All you've really done is given more context to his answer.

>Kant would say it's morally okay to say that your son is on the moon dancing with star pigeons and eating asteroid cereal.
>Kant would lie
>implying lying is morally justified and can be universalized

>>8398426
http://www.sophia-project.org/uploads/1/3/9/5/13955288/kant_lying.pdf
Because Kant understands that no murderer intent on visiting harm on someone will just say "oh okay then carry on" after you refuse to tell them the truth. The question is if you're under duress/being forced to respond by a murderer are you allowed to lie.