Show of hands here - how many have actually read any Kant? — tim wood
I've had similar criticisms of the CI. What counts as a maxim to be universalized? I think that his first formulation was trying to be too rigorous for its own good. — schopenhauer1
If the principle that guides your action is embedded in some more abstract principle, you can go up an check if the principles that guide your actions are consistent with themselves and the CI. — Echarmion
I would like to universalize the fact that everyone should smile when I walk into their establishment and be as friendly as possible. If we universalized that, there is no contradiction here, should this be a general maxim? — schopenhauer1
Let me edit what I said above.. If let's say, there WAS a contradiction..something like "If everyone were mean, civility itself would not exist".. would that be a general maxim? Everyone MUST be friendly to me when I walk into the establishment? You may disagree with how granular I'm getting.. see what I'm getting at? — schopenhauer1
Nor do I claim for one moment that forbidding literally everything was what Kant intended to do. I only claim to have put some thought into the logical implications of what Kant actually said – in his first formulation of the categorical imperative. — Theologian
“Weigh up competing maxims” is most definitely not what this rule says, and we all know it. — Theologian
So if an act can be described by any maxim that you would not will to be universal, and you perform that act, you have broken this rule. — Theologian
And if anyone here can think of even one act that is not in accordance with at least one maxim that no basically normal person could ever want to be universally applied... I challenge them to tell us what it is! — Theologian
I struggle to see the point of discussing a philosophy on the basis of wilful ignorance of the details of said philosophy. — Echarmion
Beyond the usual invitation to comment implied by any posting, I would be especially interested in hearing from anyone who knows if this argument has been made before, or who thinks they can find a flaw in my argument. — Theologian
if there is even one maxim that an act violates, Kant’s first formulation of the categorical imperative has been contravened. — Theologian
So should that be a universal maxim? "If all store employees were rude to their customers then the concept itself of customer service would no longer be a real thing". — schopenhauer1
And on the other side, recognizing duties and expressing them as maxims can be something of an art. I have certainly had - I assume most people have had - the experience of being sure I was correct/right, yet being persuaded otherwise by a wiser person. — tim wood
"A clerk should not be rude, unless a tragedy befalls him close to the time of rudeness to a customer, as then no one would be allowed time to process their grief appropriately". This then trumps the maxim, "Clerks should never be rude to customers as this is violating civility and denying their humanity". Which rule wins out? — schopenhauer1
That is, the clerk could be rude for lots of reasons, none of moral significance. — tim wood
Kant points out - makes the distinction - that the CI itself is always already prior - before - the particular question. Just as the need for a foundation for a wall is prior to the wall itself. As such, no matter of the wall itself has anything to do with the need for a foundation. the foundation is prior, the wall after. Similarly, no desire or other consideration of the act itself outside of its conformance with the CI, is relevant to the CI.
There is no logic involved here, you should try to use that term in its true sense.A conditional maxim is a contradiction in terms.We can throw away certain maxims or make them part of others but that will leaves us confused and destroy any ethical theory.That doesn't matter though, since a maxim can have as many conditions added to it as you like. Whether you treat the exceptions as a competing maxim or a part of the first maxim is logically equivalent.
I think Kant talks of perfect duties and imperfect duties, one is a must and the other is optional."If all store employees were rude to their customers then the concept itself of customer service would no longer be a real thing". This kind of granularity seems to be more controversial. You might say that customer service isn't what is violated, but civility in general. Another person would say that those aren't even contradictions like the lying-property one is, and that they wouldn't count as something violated. There is just no epistemological way to tell what kind of action should be universalized nor what the actual contradiction is that might be violated
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.