Oi! Scott, no I am NOT going to be fobbed off with Immortalists Copy
and Paste job.
You asked my what it was that was incoherent in your original post and
I spend some time, point by point sayoing why you had not found a
valid problem. Please respond if you you are able!
Here is it....
To Scott H
> On Aug 17, 11:20 am, chazwin <chazwy...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > Your posting is obscure and I'm not sure you have really raised a
> > problem.
> > If you point were more clear then perhaps the problem would be clearer
> > too.
> What part of my post did you have trouble understanding?
All of it! I understand all the individual words and even all the
grammar that emerges from the combination of words. However there is
not thread no consecutive line of logic or arguement. None of the
thought are expressed clearly as if you assuming that the reader
shares some "knowledge" which you think obvious.
Let's take it step by step.
First you set out Kant's categorical imperative thus:
"Kant's Categorical Imperative is, "Act only on the maxim that can
become through your will a universal law of conduct." For example,
lying is wrong, because if everyone lied, it would defeat the very
purpose of trust. "
I presume that is your example? This is only problematic if you
yourself think there is no valid context to lying.
Thus in the race example, I quote:
"What if we based our maxims on something particular about one group
of
people, such as race? My maxim would be, "If it happens that I am
white, then I may..." This appears to be a flaw in the Categorical
Imperative. "
You have not stated why this should be a flaw in the CI. You will
have
to state this.
If I can assume that having such an opinion is undesirable, then I
agree. But I can't see why you see this as a flaw.
People make undesirable categories all the time, and they also assume
them
to be universal. Having done this, then, they have built in a set of
justifications.
E.g. Mikey thinks that EVERYONE who disagrees with him is a "Knuckle
dragging, commie ****". He acts on this belief all the time.
Therefore
he demonstrates Kant's CI. Kant correctly predicts Mickey behaviour
in demonstating the means by which his categorical prejudice does not
contradict his (undesirable) view.
Neither Racial bigotry, nor Mickey's ranting is a flaw in the CI.
Kant
allows for differing Points of view.
Now let's look at the remainder of your posting...
"For a long time, I did not know how Kant would respond, until I read
this from an abridged translation about a kingdom of ends:
"Laws determine certain ends as universal, and hence, *if abstraction
is made from the individual differences of rational beings* (my
emphasis) ... we get the idea of a complete totality of ends combined
in a system ... we are able to conceive of a kingdom of ends ..." "
On the subject of "kingdom of ends", Kant offers this as a thought
experiment, a means by which rational humans can escape the poblem of
subjectivity. You will have to ask Mikey about this becasue it is
more
in line with his thinking than mine. Interestingly it is more in line
with his thinking than most Kantians who having accepted the
im****tance and even necessity of Kant's subjectiviist epistmeology
find in "kingdon of ends"(KOE) a purile attempt to instill MORAL
OBJECTIVITY into the proceedings. I cannot say whether Kant viewed
the
possiblility of a KOE as a utopian scheme jsut to denigrate it but is
is certainly more in line with the false consciousness of the Randist
objectivists.
"Let's discuss this.
First of all, it is not clear what Kant means. "
I would have to conclude that such a thing can only be empowered and
achieved by an individual, otherwise he would be flying against his
own epistemology.
"Second, it has been
said that genetic variety is im****tant for species survival."
I am ssuming that you are trying to introduce this argument contra
racism? You might need to unpack this!
"Third, we know that normal rules of duty cannot apply to people with
certain
disabilities. These are three problems that Kantians must face. "
There is no problem is we know that CI and KOE is personal.
You are failing to understand both CI and KOE. You will need to go
back to the books.
On Aug 18, 4:51 pm, Scott H <zinites_p...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Aug 18, 5:50 am, chazwin <chazwy...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > "What if we based our maxims on something particular about one group
> > of people, such as race? My maxim would be, "If it happens that I am
> > white, then I may..." This appears to be a flaw in the Categorical
> > Imperative. "
>
> > You have not stated why this should be a flaw in the CI. You will have
> > to state this.
>
> Refer to Immortalist's post.
>
> [snip]
>
> > "Second, it has been
> > said that genetic variety is im****tant for species survival."
>
> > I am ssuming that you are trying to introduce this argument contra
> > racism? You might need to unpack this!
>
> I won't defend it here, but you should be able to Google for it.
>
> [snip]
|
