Well said. You explained it better than I could have. A lot of those on-line universities use Kant as an introduction to ethics, so the net is filled with Kantians who argue in favor of absolutism. I spent countless hours trying to show that some principles are universal.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Immanuel Kant vs. John Stuart Mill
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
BidenPresident
Verified User
Well said. You explained it better than I could have. A lot of those on-line universities use Kant as an introduction to ethics, so the net is filled with Kantians who argue in favor of absolutism. I spent countless hours trying to show that some principles are universal.
Have you ever bothered to actually read anything by Kant?
Thread killer.Have you ever bothered to actually read anything by Kant?
You missed out on what I had to say about John Stuart Mill. Cypress talked about social contract theory but Mill went further and may be the grandfather of an economic bill of rights. If we are to survive as a nation, people need an economic bill of rights.
BidenPresident
Verified User
Thread killer.
You missed out on what I had to say about John Stuart Mill. Cypress talked about social contract theory but Mill went further and may be the grandfather of an economic bill of rights. If we are to survive as a nation, people need an economic bill of rights.
So, you never read Kant.
BidenPresident
Verified User
Neophytes like Cypress will never understand philosophy. They do not understand the difference between knowledge and right opinion.
They think philosophy is about having the right opinions rather than an inquiry into knowledge.
They think philosophy is about having the right opinions rather than an inquiry into knowledge.
Neophytes like Cypress will never understand philosophy. They do not understand the difference between knowledge and right opinion.
They think philosophy is about having the right opinions rather than an inquiry into knowledge.
That is a weird thing to claim about me, and it is not even remotely corroborated by the facts..
By far, on this forum I have posted the most diverse and wide ranging threads on the pantheon of human intellectual and religious traditions.
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...intellectual-traditions&p=3841983#post3841983
Largely because I do not think any one tradition or school of thought has a monopoly on knowlege and truth.
BidenPresident
Verified User
That is a weird thing to claim about me, and it is not even remotely demostrated by the facts..
By far, I have posted the most diverse and wide ranging threads on the pantheon of human intellectual and religious traditions.
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...intellectual-traditions&p=3841983#post3841983
Largely because I do not think any one tradition or school of thought has a monopoly on knowlege and truth.
Okay, you are right. You win. You are right, right, right.
BattleofHodow
New member
I lean towards Kant.
Morality & virtues feel different to the Human psyche vs negative immoral actions which are harmful.
One causes in normal people a feeling of peace & serenity & the other guilt & anxiety.
Morality & virtues feel different to the Human psyche vs negative immoral actions which are harmful.
One causes in normal people a feeling of peace & serenity & the other guilt & anxiety.
BattleofHodow
New member
I agree with universal morality.
But, Humans over override such, when fighting for survival.
Logic & Morale aren't necessarily one of the same.
But, Humans over override such, when fighting for survival.
Logic & Morale aren't necessarily one of the same.
The Chinese philosopher Mencius is reputed to have said that all humans would be struck by a feeling of panic and concern if we see a child fall in a well.I lean towards Kant.
Morality & virtues feel different to the Human psyche vs negative immoral actions which are harmful.
One causes in normal people a feeling of peace & serenity & the other guilt & anxiety.
There does not seem to be a biological evolutionary reason why panic and concern would well up in us upon seeing a stranger fall into a well. Mencius seemed to think this indicated humans are embued with a latent empathy or morality which did not result by accident, training, or evolution.
BattleofHodow
New member
The Chinese philosopher Mencius is reputed to have said that all humans would be struck by a feeling of panic and concern if we see a child fall in a well.
There does not seem to be a biological evolutionary reason why panic and concern would well up in us upon seeing a stranger fall into a well. Mencius seemed to think this indicated humans are embued with a latent empathy or morality which did not result by accident, training, or evolution.
Yeah, but saving a child in the well would calm one down.
Immanuel Kant: morals are categorical imperatives -- morality is an absolute objective truth which exists independent of human thought and opinion.
John Stuart Mill: ethics are constructed by humans on the basis of utilitarian and practical considerations. Consequences matter in the context of ethics. Whatever brings happiness to the greatest number of people is a true measure of morality.
Professor Lawrence Cahoons articulated a good analogy:
If you believe the freedom of speech is an absolute inviolable right such that even Nazis and Klansmen are allowed to stage demonstrations, that is legacy you have inherited from Kant.
If you believe it is right to lie if it serves a higher purpose (i.e.., to protect someone's privacy or welfare) you are practicing the utilitarianism of Mills.