Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Kant's philosophy

laleona89
Posts: 92
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2011 4:18:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
do you agree with Kant's philosophy that says that someone should not be morally judged depending on the consequence of his action, but instead on his intentions?
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2011 4:23:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/6/2011 4:18:24 PM, laleona89 wrote:
do you agree with Kant's philosophy that says that someone should not be morally judged depending on the consequence of his action, but instead on his intentions?

Nope. The Westboro Baptist Church picketing military funerals, carrying around signs that say god hates f@gs, and just being bigoted and intolerant makes them overall terrible people. They truly believe that they are doing god's work so does that make it okay?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2011 4:36:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/6/2011 4:23:02 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 4/6/2011 4:18:24 PM, laleona89 wrote:
do you agree with Kant's philosophy that says that someone should not be morally judged depending on the consequence of his action, but instead on his intentions?

Nope. The Westboro Baptist Church picketing military funerals, carrying around signs that say god hates f@gs, and just being bigoted and intolerant makes them overall terrible people. They truly believe that they are doing god's work so does that make it okay?

Actually, I partially agree with Kant that intentions make something moral or not. But see, the Westboro Church is intentionally and willfully ignorant, probably fueled by hatred and probably not good intentions.

If that truly had good intentions, they would analyze the situation, analyze the premises they take for granted, AND THEN take action. Instead, they chose to be willfully ignorant and take immoral action.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2011 4:55:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/6/2011 4:36:31 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/6/2011 4:23:02 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 4/6/2011 4:18:24 PM, laleona89 wrote:
do you agree with Kant's philosophy that says that someone should not be morally judged depending on the consequence of his action, but instead on his intentions?

Nope. The Westboro Baptist Church picketing military funerals, carrying around signs that say god hates f@gs, and just being bigoted and intolerant makes them overall terrible people. They truly believe that they are doing god's work so does that make it okay?

Actually, I partially agree with Kant that intentions make something moral or not. But see, the Westboro Church is intentionally and willfully ignorant, probably fueled by hatred and probably not good intentions.

If that truly had good intentions, they would analyze the situation, analyze the premises they take for granted, AND THEN take action. Instead, they chose to be willfully ignorant and take immoral action.

They BELIEVE that what they are doing is god's plan. Just like how Allied forces had good intentions for trying to take the Nazis out of power. Except in this case the Westboro Baptist Church believe that they are the Allied forces and gays and non-Christians are Nazis. From their own point of view they are acting virtuously. so they do have good intentions, they're apparently just already too ignorant or close minded to rationally analyze the situation.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2011 5:01:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/6/2011 4:55:26 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 4/6/2011 4:36:31 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/6/2011 4:23:02 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 4/6/2011 4:18:24 PM, laleona89 wrote:
do you agree with Kant's philosophy that says that someone should not be morally judged depending on the consequence of his action, but instead on his intentions?

Nope. The Westboro Baptist Church picketing military funerals, carrying around signs that say god hates f@gs, and just being bigoted and intolerant makes them overall terrible people. They truly believe that they are doing god's work so does that make it okay?

Actually, I partially agree with Kant that intentions make something moral or not. But see, the Westboro Church is intentionally and willfully ignorant, probably fueled by hatred and probably not good intentions.

If that truly had good intentions, they would analyze the situation, analyze the premises they take for granted, AND THEN take action. Instead, they chose to be willfully ignorant and take immoral action.

They BELIEVE that what they are doing is god's plan. Just like how Allied forces had good intentions for trying to take the Nazis out of power. Except in this case the Westboro Baptist Church believe that they are the Allied forces and gays and non-Christians are Nazis. From their own point of view they are acting virtuously. so they do have good intentions, they're apparently just already too ignorant or close minded to rationally analyze the situation.

Their beliefs are based in hatred, and religion is only a pretext. In both intent and in result they should be judged as guilty of an overall premise of hate.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2011 5:06:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/6/2011 5:01:45 PM, innomen wrote:
At 4/6/2011 4:55:26 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 4/6/2011 4:36:31 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/6/2011 4:23:02 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 4/6/2011 4:18:24 PM, laleona89 wrote:
do you agree with Kant's philosophy that says that someone should not be morally judged depending on the consequence of his action, but instead on his intentions?

Nope. The Westboro Baptist Church picketing military funerals, carrying around signs that say god hates f@gs, and just being bigoted and intolerant makes them overall terrible people. They truly believe that they are doing god's work so does that make it okay?

Actually, I partially agree with Kant that intentions make something moral or not. But see, the Westboro Church is intentionally and willfully ignorant, probably fueled by hatred and probably not good intentions.

If that truly had good intentions, they would analyze the situation, analyze the premises they take for granted, AND THEN take action. Instead, they chose to be willfully ignorant and take immoral action.

They BELIEVE that what they are doing is god's plan. Just like how Allied forces had good intentions for trying to take the Nazis out of power. Except in this case the Westboro Baptist Church believe that they are the Allied forces and gays and non-Christians are Nazis. From their own point of view they are acting virtuously. so they do have good intentions, they're apparently just already too ignorant or close minded to rationally analyze the situation.

Their beliefs are based in hatred, and religion is only a pretext. In both intent and in result they should be judged as guilty of an overall premise of hate.

Obviously they are horribly wrong and misguided people. But from their own point of view they believe they are right and morally superior to everyone else. Their intentions are, in their own view, positive so they are in line with Kant's moral philosophy.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2011 5:07:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Someone should be judged morally by whether it's possible for them to come to the conclusion that their intentions can be accomplished in a certain way without evading thought.

Unfortunately, there's a lot more to the Kantian ethics

And, of course, it's important to judge a lot of things about a person, not merely their morality. ^_^.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2011 5:10:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/6/2011 5:06:28 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 4/6/2011 5:01:45 PM, innomen wrote:
At 4/6/2011 4:55:26 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 4/6/2011 4:36:31 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/6/2011 4:23:02 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 4/6/2011 4:18:24 PM, laleona89 wrote:
do you agree with Kant's philosophy that says that someone should not be morally judged depending on the consequence of his action, but instead on his intentions?

Nope. The Westboro Baptist Church picketing military funerals, carrying around signs that say god hates f@gs, and just being bigoted and intolerant makes them overall terrible people. They truly believe that they are doing god's work so does that make it okay?

Actually, I partially agree with Kant that intentions make something moral or not. But see, the Westboro Church is intentionally and willfully ignorant, probably fueled by hatred and probably not good intentions.

If that truly had good intentions, they would analyze the situation, analyze the premises they take for granted, AND THEN take action. Instead, they chose to be willfully ignorant and take immoral action.

They BELIEVE that what they are doing is god's plan. Just like how Allied forces had good intentions for trying to take the Nazis out of power. Except in this case the Westboro Baptist Church believe that they are the Allied forces and gays and non-Christians are Nazis. From their own point of view they are acting virtuously. so they do have good intentions, they're apparently just already too ignorant or close minded to rationally analyze the situation.

Their beliefs are based in hatred, and religion is only a pretext. In both intent and in result they should be judged as guilty of an overall premise of hate.

Obviously they are horribly wrong and misguided people. But from their own point of view they believe they are right and morally superior to everyone else. Their intentions are, in their own view, positive so they are in line with Kant's moral philosophy.

That interpretation of "intention" is vacuous. The question is whether the things one intends being good makes one good, not whether thinking that the things one intends are good makes one good.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2011 5:18:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/6/2011 5:06:28 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 4/6/2011 5:01:45 PM, innomen wrote:
At 4/6/2011 4:55:26 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 4/6/2011 4:36:31 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/6/2011 4:23:02 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 4/6/2011 4:18:24 PM, laleona89 wrote:
do you agree with Kant's philosophy that says that someone should not be morally judged depending on the consequence of his action, but instead on his intentions?

Nope. The Westboro Baptist Church picketing military funerals, carrying around signs that say god hates f@gs, and just being bigoted and intolerant makes them overall terrible people. They truly believe that they are doing god's work so does that make it okay?

Actually, I partially agree with Kant that intentions make something moral or not. But see, the Westboro Church is intentionally and willfully ignorant, probably fueled by hatred and probably not good intentions.

If that truly had good intentions, they would analyze the situation, analyze the premises they take for granted, AND THEN take action. Instead, they chose to be willfully ignorant and take immoral action.

They BELIEVE that what they are doing is god's plan. Just like how Allied forces had good intentions for trying to take the Nazis out of power. Except in this case the Westboro Baptist Church believe that they are the Allied forces and gays and non-Christians are Nazis. From their own point of view they are acting virtuously. so they do have good intentions, they're apparently just already too ignorant or close minded to rationally analyze the situation.

Their beliefs are based in hatred, and religion is only a pretext. In both intent and in result they should be judged as guilty of an overall premise of hate.

Obviously they are horribly wrong and misguided people. But from their own point of view they believe they are right and morally superior to everyone else. Their intentions are, in their own view, positive so they are in line with Kant's moral philosophy.

You may be right in their overall intended purpose in calling attention to a cause which is a perverted distortion, premised on a true basis of pure hate. But their primary purpose is to knowingly cause disruption and pain - so i think you cannot let them off Scott free.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2011 5:32:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/6/2011 5:18:22 PM, innomen wrote:
At 4/6/2011 5:06:28 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 4/6/2011 5:01:45 PM, innomen wrote:
At 4/6/2011 4:55:26 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 4/6/2011 4:36:31 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/6/2011 4:23:02 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 4/6/2011 4:18:24 PM, laleona89 wrote:
do you agree with Kant's philosophy that says that someone should not be morally judged depending on the consequence of his action, but instead on his intentions?

Nope. The Westboro Baptist Church picketing military funerals, carrying around signs that say god hates f@gs, and just being bigoted and intolerant makes them overall terrible people. They truly believe that they are doing god's work so does that make it okay?

Actually, I partially agree with Kant that intentions make something moral or not. But see, the Westboro Church is intentionally and willfully ignorant, probably fueled by hatred and probably not good intentions.

If that truly had good intentions, they would analyze the situation, analyze the premises they take for granted, AND THEN take action. Instead, they chose to be willfully ignorant and take immoral action.

They BELIEVE that what they are doing is god's plan. Just like how Allied forces had good intentions for trying to take the Nazis out of power. Except in this case the Westboro Baptist Church believe that they are the Allied forces and gays and non-Christians are Nazis. From their own point of view they are acting virtuously. so they do have good intentions, they're apparently just already too ignorant or close minded to rationally analyze the situation.

Their beliefs are based in hatred, and religion is only a pretext. In both intent and in result they should be judged as guilty of an overall premise of hate.

Obviously they are horribly wrong and misguided people. But from their own point of view they believe they are right and morally superior to everyone else. Their intentions are, in their own view, positive so they are in line with Kant's moral philosophy.

You may be right in their overall intended purpose in calling attention to a cause which is a perverted distortion, premised on a true basis of pure hate. But their primary purpose is to knowingly cause disruption and pain - so i think you cannot let them off Scott free.

Well I'm not a Kantian so I don't judge actions based on intentions.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
laleona89
Posts: 92
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2011 7:18:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I agree with Kant because no one can control the outcome of an action you can just hope it ends as intended.
If I were walking in an alley at night and out of nowhere someone tries to rob me and has a gun pointed towards me and I have a gun on my bag and he is about to shoot me, but I shot him before he could kill me the outcome is not good but my intention was to protect myself even if I had to hurt someone else. Nowadays they wouldn't convict me for murder, because I was acting in self-defense.
Another example is when someone's intention is to kill someone and they are already with the knife at his throat, but someone stops this man from killing he is still convicted for attempt of murder although he didn't exactly kill someone. So isn't this theory or philosophy applied in some cases nowadays?
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2011 8:24:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/6/2011 4:18:24 PM, laleona89 wrote:
do you agree with Kant's philosophy that says that someone should not be morally judged depending on the consequence of his action, but instead on his intentions?

Where do you see Kant lay this out?
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2011 1:21:55 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
The ends do not justify the means. Therefore, morality cannot be justified by positive ends if negative means were used to achieve them. This is simply because by employing negative means you are ultimately dooming yourself to negative ends when all is said and done. For instance, laws are negative means (handing our liberty over to officers) that are supposed to achieve positive ends (less crime).

Using police, however, opens up a plethora of problems. Corruption, abuse, necessity for government institutions ranging from judges and lawyers to congressmen and bureaucrats (not to mention prisons). Using police creates a civilian vs. soldier paradigm where people are demoted to scurrying rodents while we hand our guns over to officers to protect us (who have absolutely no ability to protect us prior to any crime occurring). Police also reinforce property, which in turn prevents anyone from using the land in a sustainable manner (instead of being communally planned for efficiency, land is chopped up into rectangles and every square inch within a community becomes owned so that no one can touch it except the one or few who legally occupy it). I won't continue ranting about police since it isn't the topic of this thread, but the point is that people don't consider the entire picture when they pursue a goal. They concentrate on the end result and make moral sacrifices along the way to achieve their petty goals, all the while causing all types of problems along the way that eventually lead to disaster.

On a personal level, there are various intentions one will have. Acting morally is quite easy, despite what your fellow compatriots would have you believe. If you are acting based on lust, greed, envy, pride, gluttony, wrath, or sloth, then you are acting immorally. This paradigm actually explains most if not all of the moral dilemmas you may face in your life. This is because people are not generally aware of their own intentions and run on autopilot most of the time; they simply remember from childhood that reaching in the cookie jar got their hand slapped and don't do it anymore. They don't bother analyzing why they did it, they simply focus on the ends.

Once you realize that there are forces within yourself at play every day, and you identify what they are and how they affect you, you can isolate them from other benign intentions. Once you achieve this, you can make moral decisions without worry that something you are doing is problematic. Because if you act immorally you certainly will have problems; acting on one of the seven 'sins' always produces negative ends (later if not immediately) and thus I view morality not in terms of good and evil but in terms of utility and efficiency. It's more efficient for me to be nice to people then act out of anger all the time, for example. I can release some steam and tell someone off but in the end I will fail because of it, even if the way I am failing is not something I am willing to admit.
kfc
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2011 11:06:42 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I don't think Libertarians are ill in their intentions, but -- whether willfully ignorant or mentally inept -- just don't see the means they believe will achieve their ends don't work and have huge consequences for much of the population despite replete evidence showing the high negative externalities where their ideas have already been tried.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2012 12:18:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I agree with Kant a lot more than I do with consequentialism but not completely. I think there should be a differentiation between irrational and rational intent. Or justified/unjustified intent. If someone commits genocide because he thinks it's his moral duty, it's not moral because it's an irrational and unjustified intent.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2012 12:46:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2011 4:18:24 PM, laleona89 wrote:
do you agree with Kant's philosophy that says that someone should not be morally judged depending on the consequence of his action, but instead on his intentions?

The Fool: Really Kant's philosophy?
lol,
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2012 12:50:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2011 7:18:45 PM, laleona89 wrote:
I agree with Kant because no one can control the outcome of an action you can just hope it ends as intended.

The Fool: so you are on a computer against your control.. Think....

If I were walking in an alley at night and out of nowhere someone tries to rob me and has a gun pointed towards me and I have a gun on my bag and he is about to shoot me, but I shot him before he could kill me the outcome is not good but my intention was to protect myself even if I had to hurt someone else. Nowadays they wouldn't convict me for murder, because I was acting in self-defense.
Another example is when someone's intention is to kill someone and they are already with the knife at his throat, but someone stops this man from killing he is still convicted for attempt of murder although he didn't exactly kill someone. So isn't this theory or philosophy applied in some cases nowadays?
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2012 12:51:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2011 1:21:55 AM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
The ends do not justify the means.
and I base this on absolutely nothing.
Therefore, morality cannot be justified by positive ends if negative means were used to achieve them. This is simply because by employing negative means you are ultimately dooming yourself to negative ends when all is said and done. For instance, laws are negative means (handing our liberty over to officers) that are supposed to achieve positive ends (less crime).

Using police, however, opens up a plethora of problems. Corruption, abuse, necessity for government institutions ranging from judges and lawyers to congressmen and bureaucrats (not to mention prisons). Using police creates a civilian vs. soldier paradigm where people are demoted to scurrying rodents while we hand our guns over to officers to protect us (who have absolutely no ability to protect us prior to any crime occurring). Police also reinforce property, which in turn prevents anyone from using the land in a sustainable manner (instead of being communally planned for efficiency, land is chopped up into rectangles and every square inch within a community becomes owned so that no one can touch it except the one or few who legally occupy it). I won't continue ranting about police since it isn't the topic of this thread, but the point is that people don't consider the entire picture when they pursue a goal. They concentrate on the end result and make moral sacrifices along the way to achieve their petty goals, all the while causing all types of problems along the way that eventually lead to disaster.

On a personal level, there are various intentions one will have. Acting morally is quite easy, despite what your fellow compatriots would have you believe. If you are acting based on lust, greed, envy, pride, gluttony, wrath, or sloth, then you are acting immorally. This paradigm actually explains most if not all of the moral dilemmas you may face in your life. This is because people are not generally aware of their own intentions and run on autopilot most of the time; they simply remember from childhood that reaching in the cookie jar got their hand slapped and don't do it anymore. They don't bother analyzing why they did it, they simply focus on the ends.

Once you realize that there are forces within yourself at play every day, and you identify what they are and how they affect you, you can isolate them from other benign intentions. Once you achieve this, you can make moral decisions without worry that something you are doing is problematic. Because if you act immorally you certainly will have problems; acting on one of the seven 'sins' always produces negative ends (later if not immediately) and thus I view morality not in terms of good and evil but in terms of utility and efficiency. It's more efficient for me to be nice to people then act out of anger all the time, for example. I can release some steam and tell someone off but in the end I will fail because of it, even if the way I am failing is not something I am willing to admit.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2012 12:52:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/24/2012 12:18:07 AM, phantom wrote:
I agree with Kant a lot more than I do with consequentialism but not completely. I think there should be a differentiation between irrational and rational intent. Or justified/unjustified intent. If someone commits genocide because he thinks it's his moral duty, it's not moral because it's an irrational and unjustified intent. And I base this on absolutely nothing.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2012 1:25:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
For a second I thought the fool was actually agreeing with me! Then I saw the part he added at the end...
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2012 1:26:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
And I don't base it on nothing. We had a debate about it remember?
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2012 1:37:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't think consequentialism and deontology are mutually exclusive....in fact they're interdependent. In the vast majority of cases, intentions lead to consequences. So if you design a moral system around people's actions, it only seems natural that you would also consider the intentions. Righteous consequence without righteous intention has no guarantee for the future occurrence of those actions. Righteous intention without righteous consequence has no meaning. I don't see how you can choose to value one over the other.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2012 3:25:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2011 4:18:24 PM, laleona89 wrote:
do you agree with Kant's philosophy that says that someone should not be morally judged depending on the consequence of his action, but instead on his intentions?

Generally speaking, I don't see how a moral judgement can occur without examining intentions, but I certainly think Kant took it too far. Consideration of the consequences of ones actions as well as examining the intent based on it's application in the widest sense to include the effect on the public good need to be part of how the intention is judged.

A deontological approach to morality makes sense only if it considers consequentialist ramifications, and vice versa. The two are polar opposites, which is to say they are not just opposed or separated, they constitute a whole. They are not mutually exclusive, they are mutually sustaining, reciprocal in their true nature, like two side of a coin. As polar opposites, there is a reciprocal, transactional relationship being described by both consequentualism and deontological ethics, they reference two opposing aspects of one and the same morality, you just can't have one without the other.

In the end, for a true and just morality, Kant and Hume need to dance together,
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2012 6:09:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/24/2012 1:26:23 PM, phantom wrote:
And I don't base it on nothing. We had a debate about it remember?

The Fool: exactly, that is the proof of your many nonsensical claims. That is to say something should be based on intention or action is just to make intention or action the moral consequence. What is going with the education system down there. Too many mind viruses, ideologies everywhere. All those religious/political dogmas must affect your ability to think rationally at some point.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2012 6:33:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/24/2012 6:09:31 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 11/24/2012 1:26:23 PM, phantom wrote:
And I don't base it on nothing. We had a debate about it remember?

The Fool: Just making sure that people know that I speak with exaggerated contempt.

For example just like this:

"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" -Socrates"

Is an exaggerating expression of contempt. Where in context and language, and Time, and atmosphere. Socrates really True wisdom is to know the Limits of your Knowledge"

In the very same sense that Heraclitus on my signature uses the word "barbarian" as an exaggerated metaphor of contempt. In context he is really just saying "irrational" beings. He is the first one to specify importance of the LOGOS, that is the very notion of logic in itself.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2012 6:46:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/24/2012 6:09:31 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 11/24/2012 1:26:23 PM, phantom wrote:
And I don't base it on nothing. We had a debate about it remember?

The Fool: exactly, that is the proof of your many nonsensical claims. That is to say something should be based on intention or action is just to make intention or action the moral consequence. What is going with the education system down there. Too many mind viruses, ideologies everywhere. All those religious/political dogmas must affect your ability to think rationally at some point.

I think I know who got their @ss kicked in the debate.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2012 8:45:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/24/2012 6:46:32 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/24/2012 6:09:31 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 11/24/2012 1:26:23 PM, phantom wrote:
And I don't base it on nothing. We had a debate about it remember?

The Fool: exactly, that is the proof of your many nonsensical claims. That is to say something should be based on intention or action is just to make intention or action the moral consequence. What is going with the education system down there. Too many mind viruses, ideologies everywhere. All those religious/political dogmas must affect your ability to think rationally at some point.

I think I know who got their @ss kicked in the debate.

The Fool: If you mean Kick @ss in the very same sense that the earth is flat. Aka something is true in so far, and thus via, the more people think, believe, or accept something as true. It follows that if, by, and with whatever means possible we could convince everybody to believe, think or accept, that the earth was flat in the very same notion that we are using the term"flat" to refer to right now, that the Earth, itself, by the causal powers of acceptation, would reshape and position itself to cohere with This vote and or agreement.

Then The Fool says regardless of the condition that everybody who existed, will exist, does exist, and even God almighty himself claims this to be sound, or True, Then let it be that every single one of you to the last child, are Mad Hatters And False. For that is what it means to be The Fool!!

LONG LIVE THE FOOL!!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2012 8:55:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/24/2012 6:09:31 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 11/24/2012 1:26:23 PM, phantom wrote:
And I don't base it on nothing. We had a debate about it remember?

The Fool: exactly, that is the proof of your many nonsensical claims. That is to say something should be based on intention or action is just to make intention or action the moral consequence.

Well actually I remembered I was arguing for pure motivism there which I don't and didn't actually believe. But intent should be the main factor. I'd also definitely argue it a lot better now if I debated it. We can measure the value of the act by consequence, but not whether the person himself was acting morally. For example, if someone tried to murder Jesus but ended up killing Hitler, we could attribute the event as a morally positive one. However we wouldn't say the person was acting morally good.

What is going with the education system down there. Too many mind viruses, ideologies everywhere. All those religious/political dogmas must affect your ability to think rationally at some point.

Lololol I'm a secular atheist moderate.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)