Got the indigo attitude? Discuss what's on your mind here ...
 
PortalHomeCalendarGalleryFAQSearchUsergroupsRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Kantian or Utalitarina ethics?

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
GenericTylerDurden



Posts : 312
Join date : 2011-08-31

PostSubject: Kantian or Utalitarina ethics?   Wed Sep 21, 2011 8:18 pm

Kantian would be like: it is always wrong to kill/murder another human.

Utalitarian: if it's in self defense, or "justified" war between countries-- "ends justify the means"

so my question, even though Daniel Fischer is a bumbling dufus, he did cause me to meet some of my favorite people by creating the site IS and indirectly caused me to meet these online people;

should I still fault him for being a douchey victim?

or should I instead exalt him for causing the events which have brought joy into my life?

I'm kidding, he's forever a douchey face and I will punch him if I see him.

However, I can't help but secretly want to thank him, even though he deserves to... well nevermind, he's really short and needs things like his founder-power to make up for his inferiority complex. Usually guys just buy a porsche, but I guess making IS was cheaper.

Anyhoo, I should stop digressing and let you nitwits battle it out.

so what it is, Kant or Mill (Utalitarianism)!?!? John Stuart Mill, that is, vs Immanuel Kant.
Back to top Go down
FleurDeLis
Admin


Posts : 635
Join date : 2011-09-14
Location : Texas

PostSubject: Re: Kantian or Utalitarina ethics?   Wed Sep 21, 2011 9:00 pm

Kant is heavy material; genius in a sense, but overkill nonetheless.
Back to top Go down
GenericTylerDurden



Posts : 312
Join date : 2011-08-31

PostSubject: Re: Kantian or Utalitarina ethics?   Wed Sep 21, 2011 9:09 pm

okay-- well which camp are you in?

are there somethings which should never be done (Kant) ???

or, can the ends justify the means? (Mill)

you avoided answering, btw. Smile
Back to top Go down
FleurDeLis
Admin


Posts : 635
Join date : 2011-09-14
Location : Texas

PostSubject: Re: Kantian or Utalitarina ethics?   Wed Sep 21, 2011 9:43 pm

I dislike the expression "the ends justify the means" with a passion; it's a statement that tends to enable people to NOT think about what they do ... i.e. they don't even try to find alternatives.

Kant is too radical for me, I prefer to decide based on the situation at hand. I don't believe in killing people, I don't like war (sicko me see that as a way to curb the human populous, we got no other predator other than ourselves). Put me in front of a child molester and I'll opt to kill no questions asked.

Ethics are ... I don't know, tricky?! They lead to these generalizations and are often associated with religious themes; i.e. the don't kill, preserve life at all cost blah blah. Somebody will probably hate on me for saying this but I don't believe in keeping life alive that isn't able to sustain itself (after growing up and all the natural dependence wears of). Certain babies wouldn't survive without the means of modern medicine yet we torture them to life because life is worth ever so fucking much. They sit at the doctor all the time, can't ever be "normal" ... and then society comes with anti-discrimination BS and wants them to be the same as everybody when they are clearly not. Yep, they can smile and yes, they can create moments of happiness ... I still don't think it's worth the drama and pain.
Back to top Go down
GenericTylerDurden



Posts : 312
Join date : 2011-08-31

PostSubject: Re: Kantian or Utalitarina ethics?   Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:17 pm

FleurDeLis wrote:
I dislike the expression "the ends justify the means" with a passion; it's a statement that tends to enable people to NOT think about what they do ... i.e. they don't even try to find alternatives.

Kant is too radical for me, I prefer to decide based on the situation at hand. I don't believe in killing people, I don't like war (sicko me see that as a way to curb the human populous, we got no other predator other than ourselves). Put me in front of a child molester and I'll opt to kill no questions asked.

Ethics are ... I don't know, tricky?! They lead to these generalizations and are often associated with religious themes; i.e. the don't kill, preserve life at all cost blah blah. Somebody will probably hate on me for saying this but I don't believe in keeping life alive that isn't able to sustain itself (after growing up and all the natural dependence wears of). Certain babies wouldn't survive without the means of modern medicine yet we torture them to life because life is worth ever so fucking much. They sit at the doctor all the time, can't ever be "normal" ... and then society comes with anti-discrimination BS and wants them to be the same as everybody when they are clearly not. Yep, they can smile and yes, they can create moments of happiness ... I still don't think it's worth the drama and pain.

okay how bout-- stem cell research, that could potentially save thousands if not millions of lives and improve the lives of the rest of us... but, this is not "worth" it compared to the "life" of a super-potential-person... a stem "cell." Gdamn. Seriously? Like, we're going to give a cell more rights than a dog? wtf

^so, that would be an example of Kantian ethics prevailing in a certain aspect of society.

How would you propose tackling this problem?

and, you're right about the abuse of "ends justify the means." HOwever, the altruistic intent is for you to have the end goal in mind, like in stem cell research, the potential to save millions of lives vs the cost of "1 potential life." Hmmm, seems like an easy decision to me. The only factor here is "time" -- which Einstein has proven is just a warpable dimension. So my point is that, time should have little to no bearing (if in close vicinity) when measuring the cost/benefit of saving lives! (if we can agree that saving lives is the "end" goal)

so-- my point: if the above problem was tackled with utalitarian "ends justify the means" philosophy-- you would reason like so:

"1 potential life" < "millions of saved lives plus improving the lives of all" ...

and this is kind of an easy decision in my eyes; however, we have conservative Kantian ethics winning the battle on this issue in the U.S. I'm just saying that often there is a blend of these rules or a compromise, like within Abortion Rights. However, I do find myself sometimes stubborn-like with rules/laws (Kantian) such as "bros before hoes"; but I also find my polarized to Utalitarian such as in the stem cell research example.

What's amazing is that these two characters, Kant & Mill, were extreme. They wanted it one way and one way only. Am I correct to assume that? Or were they just professional paid trolls?
Back to top Go down
FleurDeLis
Admin


Posts : 635
Join date : 2011-09-14
Location : Texas

PostSubject: Re: Kantian or Utalitarina ethics?   Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:47 pm

lol ... professional paid trolls, I like that.

I'm in favor of stem cell research to a degree; I favor progress and knowledge, but I'm not sure sure I won't to have more of us humans ... I'm not sure we should be saved at all cost. That doesn't relate to the issue of saving 1 versus saving millions, however; I find that to be a ridiculous, rather religious argument that stands in contrast to every epic religious story of martyrdom. I guess if you want to abolish abortion you have to fight for every cell out there to make your point, no matter how nuts it is.

How to tackle this problem? ... I'll have to think about that; logic and reason doesn't fly with those people. Funny actually, given that Kant integrated Logic into philosophical reasoning and provided science with a sound view of relativity. He is so intense (overkill), that people rarely apply everything he stood for; they only take the bits and pieces they need and squeeze them in into their context. I think Kant himself would be in favor of stem-cell research.

Conservatives have a strong foothold in the U.S. population and such is reflected in politics. In order to change the adherence to conservatism, or better yet the influence of religion on conservatism (I mean, we can separate the two) we need to understand why so many Americans follow that belief. It's a bit baffling to Europeans because church and state separated long ago, religious views are not as powerful when it comes to politics and scientific progress.
Back to top Go down
GenericTylerDurden



Posts : 312
Join date : 2011-08-31

PostSubject: Re: Kantian or Utalitarina ethics?   Thu Sep 22, 2011 12:16 am

FleurDeLis wrote:
lol ... professional paid trolls, I like that.

I'm in favor of stem cell research to a degree; I favor progress and knowledge, but I'm not sure sure I won't to have more of us humans ... I'm not sure we should be saved at all cost. That doesn't relate to the issue of saving 1 versus saving millions, however; I find that to be a ridiculous, rather religious argument that stands in contrast to every epic religious story of martyrdom. I guess if you want to abolish abortion you have to fight for every cell out there to make your point, no matter how nuts it is.

How to tackle this problem? ... I'll have to think about that; logic and reason doesn't fly with those people. Funny actually, given that Kant integrated Logic into philosophical reasoning and provided science with a sound view of relativity. He is so intense (overkill), that people rarely apply everything he stood for; they only take the bits and pieces they need and squeeze them in into their context. I think Kant himself would be in favor of stem-cell research.

Conservatives have a strong foothold in the U.S. population and such is reflected in politics. In order to change the adherence to conservatism, or better yet the influence of religion on conservatism (I mean, we can separate the two) we need to understand why so many Americans follow that belief. It's a bit baffling to Europeans because church and state separated long ago, religious views are not as powerful when it comes to politics and scientific progress.

okay let's say in the application of guilt: someone's tied to the railroad tracks, you choose not to untie them and shortly thereafter a train runs them over. I say at the very least you get manslaughter if not murder. This would be Utalitarian philosophy, that you indirectly caused him to die by consciously choosing not to take the simple actions to free him. Kantian ethics would suggest that you took no direct action to cause his death so you are innocenct-- what if you had a phobia of strangers that froze you from action? you shouldn't be charged with murder for that, right? well-- then let's say intent matters. If you just watched him die for no reason other than some sick sense to watch someone get run over, I think that's almost equivalent to murder.

So how would you work that situation out?
Back to top Go down
FleurDeLis
Admin


Posts : 635
Join date : 2011-09-14
Location : Texas

PostSubject: Re: Kantian or Utalitarina ethics?   Thu Sep 22, 2011 8:16 am

If I have to choose between the two, I would lean towards the utilitarian approach in this case. It's not quite as simple to answer without a more detailed context though. Are there any indications as to why this person is tied to the tracks? How is he tied to the tracks? Will I be able to untie him with my bare hands? Do I need tools? Will I endanger my own live trying to save his? That is, could the train hit me as I'm trying to untie him/her? Is he likely to kill/harm me if I provide him with the freedom to do so?
Back to top Go down
GenericTylerDurden



Posts : 312
Join date : 2011-08-31

PostSubject: Re: Kantian or Utalitarina ethics?   Thu Sep 22, 2011 10:47 am

yea we can assume the easiest untying in history, and safest, hahaha.
Back to top Go down
Smiley
Admin


Posts : 142
Join date : 2011-09-17
Age : 31
Location : U.S.

PostSubject: Re: Kantian or Utalitarina ethics?   Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:40 pm

GenericTylerDurden wrote:
Kantian would be like: it is always wrong to kill/murder another human.

Utalitarian: if it's in self defense, or "justified" war between countries-- "ends justify the means"

so my question, even though Daniel Fischer is a bumbling dufus, he did cause me to meet some of my favorite people by creating the site IS and indirectly caused me to meet these online people;

should I still fault him for being a douchey victim?

or should I instead exalt him for causing the events which have brought joy into my life?

I'm kidding, he's forever a douchey face and I will punch him if I see him.

However, I can't help but secretly want to thank him, even though he deserves to... well nevermind, he's really short and needs things like his founder-power to make up for his inferiority complex. Usually guys just buy a porsche, but I guess making IS was cheaper.

Anyhoo, I should stop digressing and let you nitwits battle it out.

so what it is, Kant or Mill (Utalitarianism)!?!? John Stuart Mill, that is, vs Immanuel Kant.

If I had to choose between the two, I would be utalitarian, but the examples you presented aren't good examples because they are opinion oriented. Personally, war isn't self defense, which the end never justifies the means.

If I had a crazy individual trying to actively kill me, self preservation kicks in and I would defend myself. I don't believe in killing another individual, however, if in the process of defending myself I accidentally killed the individual, then that individual was simply meant to die. That is why I do not like fighting people because a simple punch to the face could easily result in the individual's demise if they turn their head and the fist hits their temple. The human body is that fragile. Basically, the intent is to restrain the individual, but if the individual dies in the process, that was the result of a freak accident the assailant initiated. That means the deceased is responsible for his/her death. This is actually one reason why I practice Jukite Ju-Jitsu.

The stem cell example begs the questions of what is considered life. If we are considered life and then are broken down to our basic components, we are made of organic compounds that are made of inorganic compounds. In this sense, inanimate objects can be construed as life. Personally, I feel once a fetus can survive outside the womb, it is life. Would it be okay to terminate, immediately after birth, a newborn that completed the full incubation cycle? No. So if a fetus can survive outside the womb half-way through the incubation cycle, then it is also life. In this sense, it would be murder to terminate a fetus after four months(?). Not sure on the exact number of months once a fetus is capable of surviving outside the womb.

GenericTylerDurden wrote:
What's amazing is that these two characters, Kant & Mill, were extreme. They wanted it one way and one way only. Am I correct to assume that?

Yes, I agree.

_________________
It is not the urge to surpass all others at whatever cost, but the urge to serve others at whatever cost.
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Kantian or Utalitarina ethics?   

Back to top Go down
 
Kantian or Utalitarina ethics?
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» The Ethics of Courting the Press
» Geoff Leonard
» An Open Letter to Carter-Ruck about there clients
» Hypocritical 'Star' rift is about profit, not ethics
» Trump: The Global Disaster waiting to happen

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
A Clockwork Indigo :: Inside the Clockwork :: Philosophy-
Jump to: