Imanuel Kant vs. The Ethos

[Shams al-Ma'rifa]

Obviously this isn't a comprehensive analysis of Kant's theories but it neatly summarizes things into an entertaining, three minute piece.

According to Kant's first maxim, homosexuality is unethical because if everyone was homosexual, nobody would have kids and the human race would then go extinct. This perfectly aligns with my morals but I see a few questions arising from this. By the first maxim, it would be unethical for anyone NOT to at least try to have kids because if nobody tries, no kids would be born and the same problem would arise

On the other hand, having too many kids would also be unethical because if everyone had like, four kids, the country would become extremely overpopulated. By this logic, everyone should be obligated to at least try to have two or three kids, in order to keep the population stable. In overpopulated areas like China, having one kid is indeed the most ethical policy to take.

This is a very logical and effective philosophy to follow; I really like it. It breaks down ethics in a secular manner so even atheists should have no complaints.

I remember the porn thread where everyone was raging at me for using my "religious morals" to criticize pornography. Everyone in that thread no longer has any excuse to criticize me for taking such a position, as follows:

Acting in porn is unethical because if everyone acted in porn, that would include my mother and sister, and I certainly wouldn't want to see them being filmed in such a manner.

Supporting unethical behavior is unethical. Acting in porn is unethical. By watching porn, you are supporting unethical behavior. Therefore watching porn is unethical.

I love these sets of principles, they work for everything. Of course it's hard to obey such rules strictly but it's a start.

[The Dude]

That vid is correct to some degree, but really a gross oversimplification of Kant's theory. He also gets the concept of maxims wrong. There aren't "three maxims". A maxim is a description of your circumstances in the format of "I will [...] when [...] because/and [...]." This maxim then has to be universalized.

Kant's philosophy feels right to a large degree but in the end, like any moral theory, it runs into inherent contradictions.

As Mark Timmons states in "Moral Theory":

Kant thought that his universalization tests would yield results that are consistent with commonsense views about the rightness and wrongness of various actions. But critics have argued that Kant's tests yield the wrong moral conclusions over a range of cases where commonsense notions about right and wrong seem fairly clear and accurate. In some cases a maxim will fail one of Kant's test (yielding a negative verdict about the corresponding action) but the action is not morally wrong (false negatives), and in other cases a maxim that featres a wrong action will pass Kant's tests, yielding a mistaken positive verdict about the act (false positives).

As an example of the first kind of case, consider the investor who intends to withdraw all of her money from the bank once the stock market index climbs another two hundred points. one cannot consistently conceive of this maxim being a universal law of nature, for reasons similar to those presented in connection with the case of false promising. If one attempts to imagine a world in which this maxim functions as a law, one ends up attempting to imagine a world in which everyone withdraws their money under the conditions specified. But since banks do not have the necessary funds on hand to support massive withdrawals, one is also attempting to imagine a world in which it is not the case that everyone in the circumstances in question withdraws their money from a bank. Thus, because the maxim cannot be universalized, the action in the maxim is morally wrong. But surely, adopting and acting on this maxim is not morally wrong, so Kant's CC test yields a false negative.

Here is an example of a false positive. Suppose that I plan to make a false promise in order to get money from someone named Igor Cycz on March 8 so that I can make a down payment on a metal detector. I thus formulate my maxim as:

"I will get money on a false promise whenever it is March 8 and I can get it from someone named Igo Cycz in order to buy a metal detector".

Now if I consider whether this maxim can be universalized, I ask whether I could consistently conceive of a world in which everyone in the circumstances in question obtains money on a false promise. Since the circumstances mentioned in my maxim are extremely rare, this maxim will pass the CC test, and so we must conclude that the actin mentioned in the maxim is morally permissible (at least in the circumstances so specified), but surely it isn't.

The problem of false negatives and false positives is related to a a more general problem for Kant's universalization tests, namely, the problem of relevant maxims. A maxim represents an agent's conception of what she is doign or proposes to do, and for every action there are innumerable possible maxims on the of which the action in question might be permformed. To make this point more clearly, suppose that I am hiding an innocent person who is being hunted by some killers. The killers come to my door and ask me whether I know where the hunted person might be hiding. Suppose I lie and deny that I know anything of the whereabouts of their intended victim. Here are a couple of the possible maxims on which I might act:

"I will tell a lie whenever I am asked a question and don't want to give the correct answer."

"I will tell a lie whenever I am asked a question whose truthful answer will likely lead to the death of an innocent person."

Both maxims fit my circumstances in the sense that they both contain correct (or what I believe to be correct) information about my circumstances. Now presumably , if I test the first maxim by Kant's tests, it will fail to be universalizable, thus implying that an act of lying in this case would be wrong. (I leave the details as an exercise for the reader.) However , if I test the other maxim by Kant's tests, it will arguably pass with the implication that the action in question is not morally wrong. Intuitively, we judge that the second maxim is, of these two, the one that should be used in testing the morality of lying in this case. What we need from kant is a principled reason for selecting one possible maxim for purposes of testing the morality of an action over the many others that might also apply to the same action. This is the problem of relevant maxims.

Critics often allege that Kant's UL version of the Categorical Imperative is useless without a solution to the problem of relevant maxims. It is useless and hence fails to satisfy the main practical aim of a moral theory, the aim of providing a useful decision procedure. Because given the multiplicity of maxims associated with any action, one can use Kant's tests to derive inconsistent moral verdicts about the same action.

To use your stance on porn and to turn it into a maxim as Kant would've done it, you would have to do the following:

"I will watch porn whenever I need sexual relief and my partner isn't around to give it to me."

Now you would have to universalize this maxim.

"Everyone will watch porn whenever they need sexual relief and their partner isn't around to give it to them."

This maxim has no immediate consequences on the working of the world, it does not violate Kant's principle of Humanity as an End in Itself, and it thereby respects the autonomy of the individual as grounded in the fact that he is a rational creature. Therefore, Kant would deem this a moral act.

He doesn't support you as much as you'd have wished

[justicar5]

Obviously this isn't a comprehensive analysis of Kant's theories but it neatly summarizes things into an entertaining, three minute piece.

According to Kant's first maxim, homosexuality is unethical because if everyone was homosexual, nobody would have kids and the human race would then go extinct. .

Try this one: It is unethical to lie to your partner about finding them sexually attractive. According to the video you linked you must never lie, so your statement brings it's own problems, a homosexual trying to have kids would have to lie to his/her partner and the children about there sexuality, thus ruining there own, and potentially the partners and childrens happiness, so in fact you have made an 'ends justify the means' the end: having children in a hetreosexual relationship, the means: lying to the partner and the children.

[Blau&Gruen]

I find the clip funny. It may not be entirely correct as Dude has said but it gives an idea of what Kant's practical philosophy includes. Regarding the title of the thread, Kant vs Ethos would be better Ethics as a Philosophy of Morals.

[Shams al-Ma'rifa]

Try this one: It is unethical to lie to your partner about finding them sexually attractive.

If your parents asked you could always tell them that's an inappropriate question, then change the subject. It would be unethical for parents to even ask that question.

According to the video you linked you must never lie, so your statement brings it's own problems, a homosexual trying to have kids would have to lie to his/her partner and the children about there sexuality, thus ruining there own, and potentially the partners and childrens happiness, so in fact you have made an 'ends justify the means' the end: having children in a hetreosexual relationship, the means: lying to the partner and the children.

Adoption doesn't count because as I've already stated, you're ethically obligated to at least try to have kids on your own.

Homosexuality is unethical because if everyone were to be homosexual, humanity will be extinct. You have to make an attempt at reproduction. Everyone is obligated to try, but if homosexuals find making babies with women repulsing, they shouldn't do it because then their relationship with their forced wife would be in tatters and wouldn't want to live in a world where children are raised in broken families.

That's the way I look at things anyways.

[Blau&Gruen]

humanity will be extinct

Kant's term of humanity is different.

Humanity is as a Kantian term an abstraction of what qualifies humans as subjects of freedom or of the moral law (see CopR 156).

The place (if you want to say so) where it comes to moral questions (from a Kantian point of view) is a world of inner experiences and the world of the inner experiences is the moral conscience.

[justicar5]

If your parents asked you could always tell them that's an inappropriate question, then change the subject. It would be unethical for parents to even ask that question.

.

partner = husband/wife bofriend/girlfriend.

[Blau&Gruen]

A selection of texts related to Kantian Ethics
(the links have been chosen randomly)

- Introduction into the Metaphysic of Morals (1785)
http://www.constitution.org/kant/ntrometa.htm
- The Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals (1785)
http://philosophy.eserver.org/kant/m...-of-morals.txt
- The Critic of Practical Reason (1788)
http://philosophy.eserver.org/kant/c...ical-reaso.txt (the plain text)
- The Religion within the Boundaries of mere Reason (1793)
http://www.marxists.org/reference/su...hin-reason.htm
- The Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Essay (1795)
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kant/kant1.htm

See also:
- http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=c...=360&Itemid=27
- http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php...=357&Itemid=28

[Shams al-Ma'rifa]

As an example of the first kind of case, consider the investor who intends to withdraw all of her money from the bank once the stock market index climbs another two hundred points. one cannot consistently conceive of this maxim being a universal law of nature, for reasons similar to those presented in connection with the case of false promising. If one attempts to imagine a world in which this maxim functions as a law, one ends up attempting to imagine a world in which everyone withdraws their money under the conditions specified. But since banks do not have the necessary funds on hand to support massive withdrawals, one is also attempting to imagine a world in which it is not the case that everyone in the circumstances in question withdraws their money from a bank. Thus, because the maxim cannot be universalized, the action in the maxim is morally wrong. But surely, adopting and acting on this maxim is not morally wrong, so Kant's CC test yields a false negative.

In this scenario the banks are being unethical by using fractional-reserve banking. They only cared about their own profits and weren't prepared for such a scenario to occur, hence the genius of Kant's first maxim.

[Blau&Gruen]

Modern philopsophers do not ask the question of freedom and subjectivity in the same way Kant has asked. A bank can't be a moral subject as it is an institution (like any other social body). Kant would focus on the individual banker in his Ethics and the bank in the legal extension of the moral question. Kant's moral philosophy has been critized for a lack of cooperative reflectivity, therefore.

[The Dude]

In this scenario the banks are being unethical by using fractional-reserve banking. They only cared about their own profits and weren't prepared for such a scenario to occur, hence the genius of Kant's first maxim.

But now you have to be consistent, because according to Kant this is irrelevant. Going by what Blau&Gruen above me demonstrates, what a bank president wants to do with his bank is his business, and any moral or immoral decisions are his alone. He has obviously committed an immoral act in how he runs his bank, but that has no bearing on the situation that the woman in the example that Timmons gave faces. Her conundrum is her own, and she has to derive a moral judgement from the given situation. Kant's categorical imperative proves insufficient as the example demonstrates.

[Shams al-Ma'rifa]

But now you have to be consistent, because according to Kant this is irrelevant. Going by what Blau&Gruen above me demonstrates, what a bank president wants to do with his bank is his business, and any moral or immoral decisions are his alone. He has obviously committed an immoral act in how he runs his bank, but that has no bearing on the situation that the woman in the example that Timmons gave faces. Her conundrum is her own, and she has to derive a moral judgement from the given situation. Kant's categorical imperative proves insufficient as the example demonstrates.

Ok, well let's play along, this lady has a few choices here but suppose everyone did demand all their money from banks. The bank would lose all trust, an evil financial institution would be destroyed, and the government would have to pay everyone back real cash, else risk a total economic meltdown.

The lady could alternatively just withdraw a small portion of her cash or wire transfer invisible money over to another bank. However, doing so would mean putting up with an unethical banking system and that, in itself, is unethical.

The most ethical choice is for her to withdraw all her money after all. Of course, the government practically requires you place all your wealth in such unethical banks and so this lady is now faced with another ethical dilemma. Do you break the law, convert all your wealth to gold, and hide all your wealth from the government? Do you put up with an unethical system just from the good of keeping society in tact for a bit longer?

[The Dude]

Before hitting the quote button and getting ready to chop this up into a quote-a-thon, please read the post first. This is important because I'm not arguing -against- you, this is an educational post. I hope. XD

You're missing a few key ingredients in your reasoning to make it Kantian. That way you're drawing conclusions that Kant would not have drawn. That's not your fault, the youtube video simply didn't point it out adequately (or at all).

Let me lay out Kant's ethics in a nutshell so you can see where he's coming from.

1) He tries to ground morality in something intrinsic to sentient existence, and that is rationality. He argues that morality can't be based on human feelings alone, because that would not do justice to our rational nature. Lying is bad, this is a rational conclusion true for both humans and aliens from planet epsilon III. To put it simply. Kant argues there can't be a society in which lying is good.

2) With rationality determined as our key factor in determinating some essential truths, Kant sets out to solidify human autonomy. We are autonomous insofar as we have the ability to apply our rationality in our choices. A human's freedom in using his rationality to live his life is therefore valued above all else, because this is an exercise in autonomy. So by now, rationality equals autonomy.

3) All human beings are potentially equally autonomous, this is true for me as much as it is for you. Human autonomy is therefore the objective of all morality, according to Kant. This is where he formulates the law of "Humanity As An End In Itself" (referred to as HEI from here on). Not simply "do unto others as you would be done to", but act in such a way that another person's autonomy (as grounded in rational decisionmaking) is stimulated. Therefore, regard another person always as an end in himself, never as a means to your end since that stimulates your own autonomy but degrades his. Not only that, but it also makes you dependent on others to be autonomous which is actually a manner of shackling yourself. Also note that "humanity" here means not our biological species but that collection of attributes which is defining to humans. Again, our rationality.

So far Kant has designed a system that completely bypasses the notion of God. And while he does introduce God later on, it happens fairly arbitrarily (in my opinion) and it changes little as to the inherent atheist nature of this moral theory.

Anyway, moving on:

4) Kant introduces the notion of duties. There are two duties, the duty of self perfection and the duty to promote the wellbeing of others. The first duty is related to developing those skills that increase your level of autonomy. The second duty is related to helping others develop theirs. Both of these duties are what Kant considers to be "The Highest Good". They are the perfect conception of morality in that sense that only someone who carries out these duties for their own sake, realising fully the importance of human autonomy and the value inherent in each human being as an autonomous rational creature, is truly moral. Merely allowing the HEI law to dissuade you from a particular course of action doesn't mean you are a good person, it simply means you were made to do the right thing.

5) Going from his concept of rationality, to autonomy, to the duties derived from those, Kant now introduces the notion of his Universal Law. Universal Law is taking a maxim, ie something that you will to do whenever x or y, because a or b, and then applying it to everyone else. Note that -willing- is the key factor in setting out a maxim. It has to be approached in the format of willing, since it is the human will that has to be rational in order to maximize our autonomy.

Clear so far? Then here come the maxims:

6) Let's assume the following situation, to stick closely to why Kant's ethics are not as suited to you as you would believe. I'm demonstrating this not to discredit you but to urge you to stay on the hunt for a system of ethics that actually works. Because, like every other normative moral theory, Kant's system falls short of covering every aspect of human action just the same. Anyway, I digress. The following maxim occurs:

I will act in pornography whenever I am poor and have absolutely no other way of making the money I need (without resorting to predetermined immoral acts that violate the HEI law, like theft).

This assumes that whenever this specific situation occurs, you will do as you will. Again, willing it is important, since this makes it a rational choice.

Let's universalize it:

Everyone will act in pornography whenever they are poor and have absolutely no other way of making the money they need (without resorting to predetermined immoral acts that violate the HEI law, like theft).

So in this maxim, everyone, that includes your friends and family, will act in pornography when this specific situation occurs. Now we need to confirm that this is indeed moral or immoral. Let's first apply the HEI law:

The HEI law is by definition of this maxim not violated. The money was made in a means that did not disrespect the autonomy of others. In fact, this course of action was chosen -specifically- because the autonomy of others was to be respected.

Secondly, from a universal perspective, how workable is this? In a world where this was the common rule, poor people would be the ones acting in pornography, and would stop doing so the moment they were rich. The taboo on pornographic acting would likely be entirely non-existent, since in this world it is highly likely that everyone at some point in their lives acted in porn. So having a porn career on your resume would not look bad and with your newfound financial wealth you could once again make yourself presentable and find another job, since that is also what this maxim covers. To only act in porn when you are poor, and therefore to not act in porn when you are alright again.

There are no logical contradictions in this maxim, that is the third demand he makes. This is specifically important to note, since Kant argues that if human rationality is paramount, a maxim can therefore not violate basic logic. For example, if you were to universalize a maxim in which everyone would shoot the person directly in front of them, it would result in a world where either people are willing to pay for the presence of people behind them with their lives, or nobody would risk appearing in the presence of someone else unless they were ensured of being able to remain directly alongside someone. This is a completely unworkable, self contradicting world that violates the HEI laws and cannot be universalized without utterly destroying society.

So with the HEI law satisfied, the universalized maxim resulting in a workable world, and there being no inherent logical contradictions in the world of this universalized maxim, Kant has no other decision than to call the acting in pornography morally justified.

Yet that is not the conclusion you would draw, at all. So it doesn't satisfy your need for a moral standard. Not entirely. You could try and make some adaptations to Kant's system, if you will, but mind you that it is precisely that: a system. You can't add to it at random and try to make it work. Then it will no longer have anything to do with Kant.

[Shams al-Ma'rifa]

Kant has no other decision than to call the acting in pornography morally justified.

I thought the maxim was if you're poor and have no other way of making money..

Anyways, so what you're saying is, the maxim "I will moon everyone I see" is ethically justified because it passes all three formulations?

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.

How about if the maxim has no logical contradictions but you don't will it become a universal law, like "Everyone will moon everyone they see"

[The Dude]

I thought the maxim was if you're poor and have no other way of making money..

Anyways, so what you're saying is, the maxim "I will moon everyone I see" is ethically justified because it passes all three formulations?

Well first off that maxim isn't complete because it's lacking a "when_because/and" component. Those are necessary to make the "will" component an active will. Since it's an active will (as a product of human rationality) that Kant emphasises, when_because can't be left out.

Anyway, what you're saying here highlights the precise problem with the Kantian system. It can render seemingly consistent moral verdicts about some basic morality, but when you start coming up with absurd maxims like this one, the system falls short. That's the problem with any moral theory: it can't cover every possible human action.

What Kant disregards for the most part is human intuition, and this is what Timmons already pointed out in the segment I quoted in my first post. This is where recent moral thinkers like Jonathan Haidt come in, who wrote a very interesting piece on intuitive vs reasoned morality. He distinguishes four modules of intuition that serve as our basic building blocks for all moral verdicts we make. I don't recall them from the top of my head, so I'd have to look that up. If you're interested in morality I won't mind doing so though. I think it's a better idea to read up as much as you can anyway, rather than running into a moral system and settling for it despite its flaws.