Andrew ponders on Ben Casnocha post:
"In Kant's Categorical Imperative he includes this moral maxim of universality: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction." In other words, if your action were to be the action everyone was taking, would you still do it? The implications of Kant to non-voters would be, "If everyone chose not to vote, the democracy wouldn't function. So vote!"
That seems like a fine aspirational ethic -- a principled stance applied to things like democracy and drug buying -- but the more realistic approach would to weigh the probability of universal adoption of the action.
If it's insanely low -- like in the case of non-voting or drug-buying -- then ignore it. If, on the other hand, there were only five total drug buyers in the world, and if you stopped buying drugs that would drastically shrink demand and perhaps result in less drug violence, you would be right to incorporate societal implications more seriously in your decision as they much greater."
"In Kant's Categorical Imperative he includes this moral maxim of universality: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction." In other words, if your action were to be the action everyone was taking, would you still do it? The implications of Kant to non-voters would be, "If everyone chose not to vote, the democracy wouldn't function. So vote!"
That seems like a fine aspirational ethic -- a principled stance applied to things like democracy and drug buying -- but the more realistic approach would to weigh the probability of universal adoption of the action.
If it's insanely low -- like in the case of non-voting or drug-buying -- then ignore it. If, on the other hand, there were only five total drug buyers in the world, and if you stopped buying drugs that would drastically shrink demand and perhaps result in less drug violence, you would be right to incorporate societal implications more seriously in your decision as they much greater."
I'm with Kant.
Casnocha doesn't object to drug use but to drug purchases funding other criminal activities. Drug use, in moderation, doesn't violate Kant's moral maxim; a world where everyone smokes a joint once in awhile wouldn't be much different than the world we live in. And drug violence could largely be resolved either by drug users quitting en masse or by legalization. Casnocha's maxim falls further apart when applied to other oral dilemmas.
No one would argue that this pedophile should "weigh the probability of universal adoption" before making the decision not use child pornography. Kant's maxim only works well when debating the direct effects of an action. If one buys marijuana it is possible that they funding other criminal activities. If one consumes child pornography they are directly supporting a heinous act."
I disagree with Andrew, Ben is right. Once you start tinkering with categorical imperative, one can start rationalizing it to anything they want. Kant was against utilitarianism and comparing pedophiles with drug usage is an indirect route to utilitarianism. As long as drugs are illegal, drug usage even in moderation defies categorical imperative and can only be justified under Aristotelian moderation.
Casnocha doesn't object to drug use but to drug purchases funding other criminal activities. Drug use, in moderation, doesn't violate Kant's moral maxim; a world where everyone smokes a joint once in awhile wouldn't be much different than the world we live in. And drug violence could largely be resolved either by drug users quitting en masse or by legalization. Casnocha's maxim falls further apart when applied to other oral dilemmas.
No one would argue that this pedophile should "weigh the probability of universal adoption" before making the decision not use child pornography. Kant's maxim only works well when debating the direct effects of an action. If one buys marijuana it is possible that they funding other criminal activities. If one consumes child pornography they are directly supporting a heinous act."
I disagree with Andrew, Ben is right. Once you start tinkering with categorical imperative, one can start rationalizing it to anything they want. Kant was against utilitarianism and comparing pedophiles with drug usage is an indirect route to utilitarianism. As long as drugs are illegal, drug usage even in moderation defies categorical imperative and can only be justified under Aristotelian moderation.
No comments:
Post a Comment