|WikiProject Philosophy||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Germany||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
- 1 Portions of this article are horribly inaccurate
- 2 This page needs expertise!
- 3 Re: proposed merge of Kant and Kantianism articles
- 4 Kantism
- 5 Uninformative sentence in "Ethics" section
- 6 some1 plz come up with a better ex for categorical imperative
- 7 Possible Ungrammatical Sentence
Portions of this article are horribly inaccurate
The epistemology section of this page presents a grossly inaccurate summary of Kantian epistemology. The other sections seem grossly misrepresentative too. I'll work on it when I have some time, but for now it pains me to see most of this page's contents. Any edit would be helpful!
Aniras 02:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Edited epistemology page. I wrote: "Central to Kant's epistemology are the following ideas: a priori, a posteriori, analytic, synthetic, and his famous synthetic a priori." This should be elaborated and Kant's epistemological constructivism should be explained. --Gottg135 03:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I tend to agree that the Epistemology section needs a lot of work. At the moment the word "apperception" does not even appear in the article, which seems impossible of any adequate account of Kant. --User:TMusgrove
This page needs expertise!
I don't know where the majority of the content of this page comes from, but it's massively different than what I learned in university in the classes I took on Kant. It also fails to mention a variety of crucial Kantian concepts like the analytic/synthetic distinction in epistemology.
In particular, the section on ethis (the part of Kantian philosophy I'm most familiar with, or was ten years ago) is really a misrepresentation. Kantian ethis are deontological, meaning driven by rational considerations of right and wrong; intent has very little to do with it, except that Kant thought that the only truly moral acts are one's which are contrary to one's disposition to act that way--in other words, the person who gives to charity because they're compassionate is not truly moral because they're serving their own impulses, not acting strictly accordingly to the principle that charity is good. The role of the Categorical Imperative, which virtually defines Kantian ethics, isn't even explored.
THIS IS COPIED FROM http://www.answers.com/kantianism :(
I know the Wikipedia response is "well, fix it, then!" However, it's been too long, and I'm not a Kant scholar.
Justin Johnson 04:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Would Kant find Genetic manipulation, engineering and cloning to be immoral? On what grounds. I cant seem to figure it out.
Interesting question. You might try to think it through by focusing on specific hypothetical applications of these technologies. For example, in 2044, two parents have a sick child -- call him Boy. The doctor tells them that Boy needs a kidney transplant, but has a tricky immune system, so the ideal donor would be a brother or sister.
Now, the parents might get to work trying to produce a second child. But doing this the old-fashioned way means 9 months and then some (because one wouldn't operate on a neonate.) So the doctor, "We can quicken the process by cloning."
You can fill in other details if you like. I would imagine Kant would find THIS use of cloning despicable. He would say that it is wrong to use a human being as a means to an end, rather than as an end in himself. In this case a human is being brought into the world as a means, as an organ farm. So some of the possible applications of some of the new technologies, I conclude, Kant would find immoral. --Christofurio 13:30, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
- He would say that it is wrong to use a human being as a means to an end This is where your thinking is going wrong. Kant argued that it is wrong to use a person as a means to an end. A person is at once a stronger and a weaker standard than "human being", since some blobs of human tissue (like fetuses, stem cells, strains of genetic information etc) are not persons, while an imaginary race of rationally autonomous aliens would be persons. Therefore it seems clear that a process that creates and kills a blob of human tissue that never develops into personhood is morally neutral under Kant's account. --malathion talk 23:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. You make a distinction between persons on one hand and "blobs of human tissue" on the other, and object to my use of the term "human being." Why? Because you hold that "human being" is an ambiguous term? I suspect you're trying to impose a dichotomy on Kant that wouldn't have occurred to him, and that you haven't really address my hypothetical, which dealt neither with stem cells nor with autonomous aliens, but with born human beings! Cloned, but otherwise normally born. Read it again. --Christofurio 12:26, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
- The distinction can be found in Kant's account of persons versus things. "Beings the existence of which rests not on our will but on nature, if they are beings without reason, still have only a relative worth, as means, and are therefore called things, whereas rational beings are called persons because their nature already marks them out as an end in itself, that is, as something that may not be used merely as a means, and hence so far limits all choice (and is an object of respect)," [Groundwork, Kt.4:428]. Until it can be determined that some "blob of tissue" is capable of reason, it should be, according to Kant, considered a "thing" and can therefore be used as merely a means, since it does not yet exist as an end-in-itself. Of course, this should probably be considered within the context that Kant was also of the opinion that infanticide of bastard children does not violate the law (wrt the doctrine of right, so legal not moral law) [Metaphysic of morals, Kt.6:336].Shaggorama 09:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- You really should read Christofurio original message again, we're talking about a fully cloned human being, alive and kicking like Dolly, who has the potential of a life and therefore reason, unlike a stem cell grown organ. Therefore this clone perfectly qualifies as a 'person', making your reply miss the point. Which is, can a 'person' be grown and harvested for organs? Quite an interesting question since science hasn't advanced up to a point where such a measure would be rendered unnecessary, if one would want to clone organs. Oliver Simon 21:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Re: proposed merge of Kant and Kantianism articles
There is a discussion of this topic under way at the Kant talk page. FYI. fi99ig 19:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
My two cents
It seems like there is some complementary information on this page that isn't included at the biography page called Immanuel Kant. My proposal is that we check this page for possible plaigarism, only because the writing quality is very high, and this topic is so difficult. I certainly couldn't say a whole lot about the topics in the headings, and I've studied a lot of philosophy. Kant is obtuse and he makes me crabby.
Also, it seems like it would be good if we listed Philosophers who followed Kant, if we are going to continue having a page called Kantianism. My guess is that most people that could be called "Kantianists" would fit better at the Neo-Kantianism page.
I'm going to start looking for plaigarized sources, because that's a job I can do, but I'd like to leave altering the pages up to someone with a little more experience with Kant. Maybe we can figure out some philosophers that are Kantianists and preserve this page, but my guess is that there isn't any reason to do so.
188.8.131.52 18:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree with that. Kant is one of the more difficult philosophers to summarize. I don't know if I would go as far as saying it was plagarized, but that very well maybe so. I say that we keep them seperate because Kant (the man), and Kantianism (the philosophy) are two different things. cheers, --zachjones4 10:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep separate. It makes no sense to conflate the two, as not all Kantianism, imperceptibly shading off into neo-K-ism, is properly due to Kant. Jon Awbrey 14:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- I think that Immanuel Kant's philosophy has a nice summary on his page (although there could be more written about the categories) and that because that page is getting rather large in file size, we should move it all here and rewrite Kant's page with very basic summaries and links to the adequate portions of this page (such as a brief summary of space and time being pure a priori forms of intuition and a link to the portion of this page that deals with that more in depth). As for the Neo-Kantian page, I think it should be kept separate from this page and list some of the major followers of Kant's philosophy and where they differ from him (such as Schopenhauer, who is a good example, Jakob Friedrich Fries and Karl Jaspers). Josh.passmore 20:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Uninformative sentence in "Ethics" section
- The Categorical Imperative is very different from a simple "What if everyone did this," moral argument and appeals solely to logical principles.
This is a worthless assertion. You'll have to explain what the difference is (currently, you're just saying "I know that difference, but I'm not gonna tell you"). --184.108.40.206 13:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
some1 plz come up with a better ex for categorical imperative
some1 plz come up with a better example!!! teh current version suckz!!! it giv the following example:
"kill everyone who annoys you"
it says that teh maxim is illogical cos if it were followed soon the world would be devoid of people to kill...
wtf!!! teh same argument can be applied to "obliterate the HIV virus", "destroy every sample of small pox"... if some1 destroy the hiv virus, there wouldn't be any more hiv virus to destroy... so like, wtf men, kantian ethics says we shouldn't destroy AIDS and shit ??? omfg... that's lamez
need better xample plz, 1 of you smart ppl
- I think the example is a very good one. Regardless of what it implies, the examples of "Obliterate the HIV virus" and "destroy every sample of small pox" are considered irrational by the standards presented in the article. Changing the example won't change the standards by which you evaluate it. And I'm sure I could think of many medical reasons why it would, in fact, not be a great idea to obliterate all of HIV or small pox. There is a reason we still have vials of the bubonic plague around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 09:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Possible Ungrammatical Sentence
The first of the two principles of Kant seems to me to be nonsensical. It reads, "1. Act only from moral rules that you can at the same time obey will be the universal moral rule." Shouldn't there be an "and it" in between "obey" and "will"? I don't know anything about Kant, or his philosophy, so I don't want to change it--especially since I might change it inaccurately--but this sentence, as it's written, makes no sense to me. If it does make sense, is there some sort of jargon I'm missing out on that would make it grammatical? 18.104.22.168 (talk) 09:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- On the Immanuel Kant page can be found:
- The first formulation (Formula of Universal Law) of the moral imperative "requires that the maxims be chosen as though they should hold as universal laws of nature" (436). This formulation in principle has as its supreme law the creed "Always act according to that maxim whose universality as a law you can at the same time will" and is the "only condition under which a will can never come into conflict with itself [....]"
- Let me think about it because, to me, the sentence needs a more complete rewrite in order for it to be properly clarified. Something like, "Act only from moral rules that you can at the same time will (and/or obey) as a universal moral rule (or law)." .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`. 20:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)