• schopenhauer1
    9.9k
    Can a categorical imperative still be binding if what brought about the situation for the CI was due to another CI situation being violated?

    So let us say the following is an application of the CI:
    1.) One must work hard, because if one does not work hard was universalized, no one would work hard and living itself would be difficult. One cannot judge without being alive, thus a contradiction (of sorts).

    2) Alternatively another application of the CI might be
    One must work hard, because owners of companies are paying you to live and it would be unfair to the owner paying you. Fairness itself would be violated, thus a contradiction (of sorts).

    However, in order for these to come into play, someone had to violate the force of putting someone into existence in the first place.. Thus, in order to get those two CIs, you need to violate this one:

    3) One should always be consented for weighty matters of life and death otherwise, anyone can do something on someone's behalf because they simply desire it. If everyone acted this way, people would be constantly used (a violation of 1st and 2nd formulations of CI.. 1st because of contradiction of no consent and 2nd because of using people).

    or

    4) One should never undeservedly be forced into an arrangement (whereby one must work hard to live, let's say) whereby they cannot get out of that arrangement without significant harm, otherwise the fairness of forcing someone into a bind that they may not like would be acceptable. Freedom itself would be violated and cause a contradiction (1st and 2nd formulation violations).

    So are the first two binding if brought about due to violations of 3 and 4? In other words, why should CIs be binding on people who were put in situations where CIs were broken to get them in that situation? That itself seems like a violation of fairness, freedom, justice and the CI.

    tl;dr: If the old adage is true that "Life just isn't fair", then why life in the first place (ethically speaking)?
    OR, how can something be considered a binding ethical rule if that itself came about by breaking that very same principle that makes it binding in the first place?
  • god must be atheist
    5.1k
    I think your logic is sound, but do your support arguments invoke CI? CI is something to the effect that you should only do something that you'd have the whole population to do.

    So hard work... yes, you can work hard, and it would not harm anyone if everyone would work hard, but what if some people worked hard and some did not? You say that violates the law of fairness (do not cheat others in a way you would not want to be cheated), but there is a hitch here: some people do not mind working harder than others. And some others enjoy freeloading. This now enters the realm of personal taste and personal view, subjective judgment: do I mind working harder than others, or do I mind if others work harder than I? The answer to these two questions are not universal by everyone. And basically here you cited universality.

    What I am riding on is that a fair trade is not an objectively judged trade for fairness, but a subjectively judged one. Sure there are objectively judged fair trades, but they do not comprise all fair trades.
  • schopenhauer1
    9.9k
    So hard work... yes, you can work hard, and it would not harm anyone if everyone would work hard, but what if some people worked hard and some did not? You say that violates the law of fairness (do not cheat others in a way you would not want to be cheated), but there is a hitch here: some people do not mind working harder than others. And some others enjoy freeloading. This now enters the realm of personal taste and personal view, subjective judgment: do I mind working harder than others, or do I mind if others work harder than I? The answer to these two questions are not universal by everyone. And basically here you cited universality.god must be atheist

    The CI confuses me in its application sometimes. Why is theft a CI then? Some people let's say wont' mind certain things being stolen... But that isn't the reason its universal (as I interpret it). Rather, it is because if EVERYONE stole, then property itself would be negated.. the very thing that the person was presupposing by stealing it from someone else.

    But then Kant tried to make a distinction between perfect and imperfect duties. Perfect duties are always binding because create a contradiction in presupposition. Imperfect duties are more "positive" things that one might do out of being a rational human that needs aid from other rational humans (again my interpretation). Perhaps "working hard" is an imperfect duty to perfect one's talents to aid humanity.. If that is the case, then I think Kant's CI is very susceptible to negating itself in this application for reasons I said in the OP. The perfect duty not to violate someone's freedom unnecessarily would override (and perhaps even negate) one's (supposed) imperfect duty to perfect one's talents to aid humanity.
  • schopenhauer1
    9.9k
    Added more to last post.
  • god must be atheist
    5.1k
    My sentiments exactly. But working hard does not quite fit into the same dilemma mold. It would be an okay world if everyone worked hard; but it could conceivably be still an okay world if not everyone, but just some would work hard.

    This is slippery. Because the CI only makes statements about positive actions (only do anything if everyone also did it would not make the world worse), but it does not make statements on the lack of action (don't do anything that would harm the world if everyone did it.) Because EVERYONE doing it would harm the world, but SOME doing it would not harm the world.

    This is difficult. I can't fight my way out of it. I'm getting old.
  • T Clark
    13k
    One must work hard, because if one does not work hard was universalized, no one would work hard and living itself would be difficult. One cannot judge without being alive, thus a contradiction (of sorts).schopenhauer1

    One of the ways Kant formulated the categorical imperative is

    Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.

    I'm not sure of this, but don't you have the idea of the categorical imperative backwards? Isn't it the positive behavior that is universalized as an obligation? I think that makes a difference, doesn't it?

    Added more to last post.schopenhauer1

    This is a good idea. I'll use it from now on.
  • schopenhauer1
    9.9k
    I'm not sure of this, but don't you have the idea of the categorical imperative backwards? Isn't it the positive behavior that is universalized as an obligation? I think that makes a difference, doesn't it?T Clark

    Yeah, was saying something similar here:
    Because the CI only makes statements about positive actions (only do anything if everyone also did it would not make the world worse), but it does not make statements on the lack of action (don't do anything that would harm the world if everyone did it.) Because EVERYONE doing it would harm the world, but SOME doing it would not harm the world.god must be atheist

    So are you both saying "inaction" does not itself count as an action? How about if I said, "The action of not working hard".. "If everyone did other than working hard...". Is there a way that's acceptable? Maybe I'm not getting the meaning of "positive behavior" or where he says that as opposed to "not doing". Why would the way I phrased it not work? It can still be universalized.. That is why "Some people can steal" doesn't work.. It's universalized.. "If everyone stole..".. Why can't you say, "If everyone did not X"?
  • T Clark
    13k
    So are you both saying "inaction" does not itself count as an action? How about if I said, "The action of not working hard".. "If everyone did other than working hard...". Is there a way that's acceptable? Maybe I'm not getting the meaning of "positive behavior" or where he says that as opposed to "not doing".schopenhauer1

    According to Kant's formulation that I quoted, something becomes a categorical imperative when I will that it be universal. I think the act of will is the important factor.

    Also, and maybe this is a quibble, the work hard obligation would only be applicable in situations where hard work is needed.
  • god must be atheist
    5.1k
    the work hard obligation would only be applicable in situations where hard work is needed.T Clark

    Or where the boss is the sole proprietor of the concern.

    I don't think it's in the wording, Sch. It's the concept itself that does not fit the mold of CI. I feel that you can word it any way, and still not get around the problem.

    The act of "not working hard", for instance, includes lazing about, flying kites, curing cancer, sleeping, watching a movie, and eating popcorn. Doing light housework, giving a sermon, leading Sunday School, directing a choir, visiting the Playboy Mansion, watching live footage of Harry Mason in jail, etc.

    No, it's the fact that "working hard" is a convergent action, whereas "not working hard" is hopelessly divergent. How can you regulate an action that is by nature divergent? How can you categorize such an action into a neat little category? That's what the problem is.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.