Would you consider veganism a philosophy? I usually define it as the attempt to avoid animal products for ethical reasons. Is this in your opinion a decent definition for a philosophy (asking as I regard you as an expert) :)
Thanks for regarding me as an expert! I would say that exactly how to define veganism will determine whether or not it is a philosophy. A philosophy is generally the assertion that a generalized proposition is true (though that is an interesting subject). So by that definition we might classify vegans in three areas: 1) People that avoid animal products just out of circumstance, perhaps animal products are too expensive or they cannot digest them, etc. but they would eat them if they could, or they would be indifferent. 2) People that desire to eat things without animal products, not because of some belief, but just out of a base desire, and 3) People that hold some belief which leads them to choose not to eat animal products. The first two are cases of philosophy, the third will depend on what those reasons are. If you think that is is a moral imperative to not eat animals, yes. If you think that it is healthy to not eat animals, probably not, unless you are coupling that with a normative belief that people should be healthy. The question if you fall into the third bucket really is how generalized the belief you are basing your claim on. The more generalized, the more philosophical it looks. I would count your claim as a philosophy based on your claim that one does this "for ethical reasons". A philosophy would probably want you to specify those reasons a little more, but that is more a matter of quality than typology. Hope that helps. Thanks for watching!
I think its an error to call veganism or anything a philosophy. Veganism is an idea that is a result of a philosophical argument about the ethics of animal treatment. Or something i dunno
When he says that the negation of an imperfect duty results in a society that a rational person wouldn't want to live, is he referring to people's moral intuitions or something akin to Rawls's original position? Or is it both? For a comment on the first conception of the categorical imperative, it seems like Kant tries too hard to have his theory be useful, and ends up sacrificing some truth for the ability to make normative claims. He ends up conflating different actions together when a nuanced strategy for making actions wouldn't necessitate them to be the same.
Kant's ethics has shortcomings. Here you find the improvement of his thought: spirit-salamander.blogspot.com/2023/05/completing-kants-ethical-approach.html
Is Kantian, then, a form of social Socialism ?? No that's not a typo I mean it- Is it a social exacting origin of socialism? I am not referencing economics nor internal ?? M
How are the hypothetical and categorical terms not switched? If we know a shovel is specifically made to dig holes, and it's way easier to dig holes with a shovel, how is that a hypothetical? Do we know the history behind these terms?
Hypothetical in the sense that, in logic, a "hypothetical" statement is an "if then" statement. If you want to do X then you should do Y. So if you want to dig a hole, you should use a shovel. You won't say that a shovel is good for everything, but in the hypothetical situation "if" you are digging a hole "then" a shovel is good. Categorical on the other hand is used to mean absolute, or unqualified, such as a categorical denial. The key here is "unqualified", i.e., not in a certain situation, but in all situations.
Well, if someone knocks at your door and asks you to tell him where your mother is, so he can kill her, Kant says, you must tell him, because you can never lie.
@@FrogEnjoyer17 But that also doesn't mean you have to allow the person to kill your mother. You can say "My mother is in her bedroom, but I'm not letting you in", and act accordingly...or something to that effect. A more philosophical argument against Kant is, put simply, if you are a Consequentialist. That is, you believe that the "morality" of an action lies in its consequences. Kant strongly disagrees with that, and that would be viewed by many as a weakness. Also, if you believe that not every moral decision can be made into a universal maxim... OR if you believe that certain universal decisions will NOT result in a LOGICAL contradiction, then you are at odds with Kant. these are very broad, but they are the foundations of Kantian ethics AND, by effect, the fodder to refute them. So essentially, research ANY Consequentialist moral system, and youll have arguments against Kant.
considering Kant believed that the state was necessary to secure people's rights, would he say that you have a duty (perfect or imperfect) to pay taxes?
Do a thought experiment: It takes money to function, how will the state get it? By extortion, force, seizing private property and ownership? Redistributing the country's wealth and natural resources, by putting things under "government control"? (No, of course not! That's radical disrespect for the sanctity of private property!)
![[UNCUT] “บอสณวัฒน์” ลากไส้!! ใครหนุนหลัง "แม่ตั๊ก ป๋าเบียร์" I คนดังนั่งเคลียร์ I 30 ก.ย. 67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QlD7mU2KKRk/mqdefault.jpg)
I want to stop philosophising, but I kant
Best comment ever
The biggest Kant to stand between me and my degree. Thanks for the help.
Doodies!?!?
“Going to war is good for getting people killed” 😂 I did not see that one coming lol. Great video!!
Thanks! :)
Kant is love
Kant is life
kant, do!!!
Zinh0 too much taken for granted
Chidi would be proud.
Easily one of the worst philosophers of all time.
Would you consider veganism a philosophy? I usually define it as the attempt to avoid animal products for ethical reasons. Is this in your opinion a decent definition for a philosophy (asking as I regard you as an expert) :)
Thanks for regarding me as an expert! I would say that exactly how to define veganism will determine whether or not it is a philosophy. A philosophy is generally the assertion that a generalized proposition is true (though that is an interesting subject). So by that definition we might classify vegans in three areas: 1) People that avoid animal products just out of circumstance, perhaps animal products are too expensive or they cannot digest them, etc. but they would eat them if they could, or they would be indifferent. 2) People that desire to eat things without animal products, not because of some belief, but just out of a base desire, and 3) People that hold some belief which leads them to choose not to eat animal products. The first two are cases of philosophy, the third will depend on what those reasons are. If you think that is is a moral imperative to not eat animals, yes. If you think that it is healthy to not eat animals, probably not, unless you are coupling that with a normative belief that people should be healthy. The question if you fall into the third bucket really is how generalized the belief you are basing your claim on. The more generalized, the more philosophical it looks. I would count your claim as a philosophy based on your claim that one does this "for ethical reasons". A philosophy would probably want you to specify those reasons a little more, but that is more a matter of quality than typology. Hope that helps. Thanks for watching!
I think its an error to call veganism or anything a philosophy. Veganism is an idea that is a result of a philosophical argument about the ethics of animal treatment. Or something i dunno
+commonhumantraits isn't veganism a social movement?
@@FindingsOfAnArmouredMind its a dietary choice
+commonhumantraits That's more like vegetarianism.
considering the universe hostility towards everything, i dont think this would be a very good representation of our realitys ethics.
When he says that the negation of an imperfect duty results in a society that a rational person wouldn't want to live, is he referring to people's moral intuitions or something akin to Rawls's original position? Or is it both?
For a comment on the first conception of the categorical imperative, it seems like Kant tries too hard to have his theory be useful, and ends up sacrificing some truth for the ability to make normative claims. He ends up conflating different actions together when a nuanced strategy for making actions wouldn't necessitate them to be the same.
Great! Looking forward to more concise explorations.
You can't lie to the murderer :(
Kant's ethics has shortcomings. Here you find the improvement of his thought:
spirit-salamander.blogspot.com/2023/05/completing-kants-ethical-approach.html
Is Kantian, then, a form of social Socialism ??
No that's not a typo I mean it-
Is it a social exacting origin of socialism?
I am not referencing economics nor internal
?? M
How are the hypothetical and categorical terms not switched? If we know a shovel is specifically made to dig holes, and it's way easier to dig holes with a shovel, how is that a hypothetical? Do we know the history behind these terms?
Hypothetical in the sense that, in logic, a "hypothetical" statement is an "if then" statement. If you want to do X then you should do Y. So if you want to dig a hole, you should use a shovel. You won't say that a shovel is good for everything, but in the hypothetical situation "if" you are digging a hole "then" a shovel is good.
Categorical on the other hand is used to mean absolute, or unqualified, such as a categorical denial. The key here is "unqualified", i.e., not in a certain situation, but in all situations.
please a video on comparing kant critique of pure reason & lewis modal realism?
Are there any major criticisms to Kantian Ethics?
Well, if someone knocks at your door and asks you to tell him where your mother is, so he can kill her, Kant says, you must tell him, because you can never lie.
@@FrogEnjoyer17 But that also doesn't mean you have to allow the person to kill your mother. You can say "My mother is in her bedroom, but I'm not letting you in", and act accordingly...or something to that effect.
A more philosophical argument against Kant is, put simply, if you are a Consequentialist. That is, you believe that the "morality" of an action lies in its consequences. Kant strongly disagrees with that, and that would be viewed by many as a weakness.
Also, if you believe that not every moral decision can be made into a universal maxim... OR if you believe that certain universal decisions will NOT result in a LOGICAL contradiction, then you are at odds with Kant.
these are very broad, but they are the foundations of Kantian ethics AND, by effect, the fodder to refute them. So essentially, research ANY Consequentialist moral system, and youll have arguments against Kant.
@@FrogEnjoyer17 I ll say I’m not telling you because you are murderer n I want my mother to live. Kant would be proud lol
They are (!) certainly plural!❤
Real hero!!!! Saving my ass from the writing class
lol you said duties
Haha. Kant was really just the most epic prankster getting everyone to talk about duty. :)
I think you mean 'tenet' rather than 'tenant'.
Rudn university 😍🥰
considering Kant believed that the state was necessary to secure people's rights, would he say that you have a duty (perfect or imperfect) to pay taxes?
Do a thought experiment: It takes money to function, how will the state get it? By extortion, force, seizing private property and ownership? Redistributing the country's wealth and natural resources, by putting things under "government control"? (No, of course not! That's radical disrespect for the sanctity of private property!)
Any moral antirealism?
Nice
00:55 should read tenet, not tenant?
Yep. Good catch.
reading the slides is not the way we should explain sth
Have you thought of the ear- impared and how they can get it?