Comments on: You Kant Dismiss Universalizability

By: Princess_Stargirl

Princess_Stargirl — Mon, 25 Aug 2014 23:28:11 +0000

Its an old article but I want to point out books bound in human flesh would not bother me at all. I am not sure I would outright purchase one but I would vaguely consider it. Assuming I was sure this would not lead in any way toward people getting killed.

Though I think I have an extremely unusually low level of digust toward most things (except bugs).

Report comment

By: Variations on a theme: heroic protectiveness | Carcinisation

Variations on a theme: heroic protectiveness | Carcinisation — Wed, 20 Aug 2014 23:23:50 +0000

[…] purity, and/or universal order. You value order and light. Threats are disorderly: they violate universal rules against violence and […]

Report comment

By: Rory O’Kane

Rory O’Kane — Sat, 24 May 2014 06:03:15 +0000

Or you could instead precommit to flipping a coin to choose between the two, at the time that the sensors tell you that missiles have launched. That might still be an effective deterrent, if the aggressors judge that the positive utility from the hypothetical attack is less than half the negative utility of the hypothetical counterattack. And it would give a 50% chance of saving the world if a sensor mistake happens.

Report comment

By: Paul Torek

Paul Torek — Thu, 22 May 2014 09:52:55 +0000

Thirded.

Also, in a similar spirit, Jürgen Habermas’s discourse ethics. Admittedly not as readable as Scanlon.

Report comment

By: Paul Torek

Paul Torek — Thu, 22 May 2014 09:47:20 +0000

I agree with your interpretation of Kant. However, complications quickly arise over who gets to define the action. Is lying, for example, necessarily about deception? Maybe the liar claims that he just likes saying the opposite of the truth sometimes, and he doesn’t care what the listener believes. If we define lying via deception, the falsehood-teller denies that he is “lying”. Etc.

If Kant has a satisfactory answer, I’m not aware of it.

Report comment

By: Paul Torek

Paul Torek — Thu, 22 May 2014 09:39:07 +0000

Thank you. Some hypotheticals deserve a good fight. If only to point out just how far into the hypothetical realm they reside.

Report comment

By: Protagoras

Protagoras — Thu, 22 May 2014 02:12:19 +0000

Actually, the purpose that the maxim is directed at is canonically supposed to be part of the maxim for Kant. He just leaves it unstated in nearly all of his examples, at massive cost to clarity.

Report comment

By: kappa

kappa — Thu, 22 May 2014 02:08:57 +0000

That post is amazing. It expresses a lot of things about utilitarianism that make sense to me as though I have been thinking them all along even though I never quite put them into concepts so clear.

Report comment

By: Paul Torek

Paul Torek — Thu, 22 May 2014 01:20:21 +0000

The idea of a mixed strategy would be foreign to Kant, but truer to the spirit of universalization. To wit, behind every maxim is a motive. The motive indicates the Real Maxim. The Real Maxim is then tested. I think this is what Scott’s trying to get at.

For example, if I offer the maxim “everyone give all their money to someone named Paul Torek” the Real Maxim is self-love. As Scott discussed, this leads to Levi seeking money for Levi and Paula for Paula.

The Real Maxim in the nuclear terrorism case is “save my city, extremely important, and if possible save my general too.” The mixed strategy captures that perfectly.

Comments on: You Kant Dismiss Universalizability

By: Princess_Stargirl

By: Variations on a theme: heroic protectiveness | Carcinisation

By: Rory O’Kane

By: Paul Torek

By: Paul Torek

By: Paul Torek

By: Protagoras

By: kappa

By: Paul Torek

By: Creutzer