Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
That is, to do your philosophy homework for you. Okay
Kant's ethics instructs us to act in such a way that the maxim we are guided by can be a universal law. This universal law (the categorical imperative) must apply to all people in all circumstances.
Can we imagine a world in which all people lie in all circumstances? No, we can't – that would make any interaction impossible.
Therefore, the categorical imperative dictates that we *always * tell the truth. Kantian ethics is the ethics of duty (obligation). Kant must tell the killer the truth.
Possible developments:
I'm hiding in Immanuel Kant's house. The killer asks where I am. Kant says I'm in the house. They're killing me.�
2) I'm hiding in Immanuel Kant's house. The killer asks where I am. Kant lies and says I'm not in the house. I think that he will tell the truth and climb out of the window (Kant does not know about this), the killer sees me on the street and kills me anyway.
In the first case, the murder will be on the conscience of the killer. Kant is not to blame, because the categorical imperative is categorical. It must be executed�always.
In the second case, the murder will be on Kant's conscience – in the first place, he lied. Second, I was killed anyway.�
Therefore, if I hide in Kant's house, I will be killed. So I'd rather pass it by.
But if I hide there without Kant noticing, Kant will not lie if he answers the killer's question with “I don't know” or “there is no one in the house”, because he is convinced that this is true.
Therefore, it is possible to hide in Kant's house only if it can be done in secret from the owner.
Does such an act violate the categorical imperative? That's another question.
But there is an even more interesting question.�
Can we imagine a world where people always allow others to kill outsiders? Does the duty not to lie conflict with the duty to save one's life?
Scene I. Koenigsberg Street, getting late
I'm being stalked by an anonymous user. He probably wants to sell me something. But it doesn't.
Anonymous: Can you tell me
how to get to the library, how many degrees below zero it is, do you have time to talk about our Lord Jehovah,what would Kant say in this situation?We go quickly to Kant, let him answer him himself.
Scene II. Kant's Last House
Is the Kant:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/7cb1QmTkOAI?wmode=opaque
I agree that the formal interpretation of the problem distorts its meaning.
The question is not actually about lying, but about whether it can be a principle of universal legislation to do everything necessary to save an innocent person (asking for your help)?
In another setting, it would sound something like: a patient came to the dentist for an appointment – can the doctor hurt him? And here follows a formal interpretation: you can not cause pain. I.e., for this case, you can not provide medical assistance. But we overlook the fact that the goal here is to help the patient, not to cause suffering.
In addition, Kant's law is moral, metaphysical, and not formal, utilitarian, pragmatic, and so on. It is not a question of ensuring interaction, survival, etc., but of acting according to the “moral law in me”.