This podcast episode has been extremely helpful in my understanding of Kant's purpose for writing the groundwork. One thing I don't understand: In the second section Kant gives four examples of duties to ourselves and duties to others, the first on this list being the question of suicide under conditions of extreme suffering or "evil." Kant says that suicide amid despair contradicts a law of nature because the act of destroying life stems from self-love, or, an effort to preserve one's life.
I think another video about this should be made. Using mathematics to explain is a no go, google "7+5 Kant". I think the a-priori should have been discussed and how Kants apriori is different than Kripkes, after all Kants apriori is important in this work. Whoever is speaking at 1:50 I would agree with you there, but I think its not soo much presupposing as much as it is identifying. There is an explanation about this in the Gregor version (Cambridge University Press, 1998), search "promises" in there.
(cont) If the individual is suffering, though, wouldn't the desire of the will of that person then be to end suffering? Could not we all agree a priori that no suffering is a universally applicable maxim? I don't understand
the commentator is oblivious of the fact that kant is talking about at least second order complex systems. the presuppsoitoon of kantian ethics is insight into the epistemic restrictions that render utilitarianism ineffective.
blah - you're making it seem like it's never OKAY to lie.. It can be okay to lie, but it isn't a moral thing.. Someone with moral righteousness wouldn't even have a reason to lie, but if some freak accident were to happen, the action they took wouldn't be a moral action, but a coping action... Just like driving a car, it's okay to drive a car, but the moral thing would be to ride a bike. If you stripped all of your desires away, to get to work or class, you wouldn't actually need the car.. You are doing something immoral by driving a car, but when you ride a bike, we aesthetically give you moral value, in our own judgements. You don't have to be morally perfect, seldom are people, but that is the goal, bc that is how the people doing best off behave.
unfortunately, kantian ethics are a bit more complicated. again someone getting bogged down in the complexity of the kantian argument. teh descriptive versus normative issue is not that simple. p.h.
This podcast episode has been extremely helpful in my understanding of Kant's purpose for writing the groundwork. One thing I don't understand: In the second section Kant gives four examples of duties to ourselves and duties to others, the first on this list being the question of suicide under conditions of extreme suffering or "evil." Kant says that suicide amid despair contradicts a law of nature because the act of destroying life stems from self-love, or, an effort to preserve one's life.
I think another video about this should be made. Using mathematics to explain is a no go, google "7+5 Kant". I think the a-priori should have been discussed and how Kants apriori is different than Kripkes, after all Kants apriori is important in this work. Whoever is speaking at 1:50 I would agree with you there, but I think its not soo much presupposing as much as it is identifying. There is an explanation about this in the Gregor version (Cambridge University Press, 1998), search "promises" in there.
(cont) If the individual is suffering, though, wouldn't the desire of the will of that person then be to end suffering? Could not we all agree a priori that no suffering is a universally applicable maxim? I don't understand
the commentator is oblivious of the fact that kant is talking about at least second order complex systems. the presuppsoitoon of kantian ethics is insight into the epistemic restrictions that render utilitarianism ineffective.
Somebody is oblivious-- or a delinquent troll.
blah - you're making it seem like it's never OKAY to lie.. It can be okay to lie, but it isn't a moral thing.. Someone with moral righteousness wouldn't even have a reason to lie, but if some freak accident were to happen, the action they took wouldn't be a moral action, but a coping action... Just like driving a car, it's okay to drive a car, but the moral thing would be to ride a bike. If you stripped all of your desires away, to get to work or class, you wouldn't actually need the car.. You are doing something immoral by driving a car, but when you ride a bike, we aesthetically give you moral value, in our own judgements. You don't have to be morally perfect, seldom are people, but that is the goal, bc that is how the people doing best off behave.
LOL, "useless"? Or did you mean "useful"?
unfortunately, kantian ethics are a bit more complicated. again someone getting bogged down in the complexity of the kantian argument. teh descriptive versus normative issue is not that simple. p.h.