If someone wants to kill your son you should tell them where he is because lying is bad XD

are you telling me there are people on Veeky Forums who only listen to second/third hand accounts of philosophical teachings rather than reading the source material and decyphering the content for themselves with their reason?

fuck outta here liberal faggot

reddit-tier irony m8

how do I know if I'm a reddit?

if you laugh at stuff that's "supposed to be" funny

in other words, if you're a lame, conformist fuckwad

this

not true, but I doubt you have

Truly the greatest of all ethicists.

>The concept of universalizability was set out by the 18th-century German philosopher Immanuel Kant as part of his work Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals. It is part of the first formulation of his categorical imperative, which states that the only morally acceptable maxims of our actions are those that could rationally be willed to be universal law. The precise meaning of universalizability is contentious, but the most common interpretation is that the categorical imperative asks whether the maxim of your action could become one that everyone could act upon in similar circumstances. If the action could be universalized (i.e., everyone could do it), then it is morally acceptable. Otherwise, it is not. For instance, one can determine whether a maxim of lying to secure a loan is moral by attempting to universalize it and applying reason to the results. If everyone lied to secure loans, the very practices of promising and lending would fall apart, and the maxim would then become impossible. Kant calls such acts examples of a contradiction in conception, which is much like a performative contradiction, because they undermine the very basis for their existence.

>assuming happiness and good are preferable

Bentham was a total pleb

>just do the math!!!1 just add up the happinesses!! xDD
I cannot think of a more meme philosophy than this.

How did this cretin end up being quoted two hundred years after he had died?

That's not much of a criticism.

edgy.

>argument from intuition
literally the plebbest argument possible

By being one of the most influential ethicists of all time, presumably

It all comes down to intuition in the end. a

Like our intuition that we can derive knowledge from sensory experience, or hold knowledge at all.

just because you lack intellectual creativity doesn't mean things inaccessible to your thought are impossible

Ive said it time and time again:

Kant would clearly allow such an action, because lying to a murderer is not abusing gheir humanity, it is protecting the victims. (Humanity Formula).

The murderer has already forfeited his right to humanity; there is nothing in him you can violate.

Futhermore, if we abide by the Kingdom of Ends formulation of the Categorical Imperative (the one you kiddos seem so happy to ignore), it becomes apparent that not all ends of man are equal; the murderers wish to destroy humanity is infact immoral and you have a duty to stop it.

Lastly, using the Universal Law formulation, it is clear that allowing murderers their way can never create a consistent world: everyone would be getting murdered all the time. It is consistent and plausible to always lie to murderers.

OP's post only holds to be a challenge if you have a dramatic misunderstanding of Kant (like you guys do with all philosophers).

It does not. Have you read the Groundwork? The CI is not the same as the Golden rule, which you appare tly think it is.

You have no duty to talk to the man at all. You also have a duty to stop a murder.

>Ethics arent binding
>Thinking happiness = pleasure (Fucking Aristotle proved this shit wrong)
>Quantifying Happiness, or even pleasure and pain
>Pretending he isnt defending hedonism
Yikes

except for the part where in "On the Supposed Right to Lie from Philanthropic Motives" he says 'no it's definitely immoral to lie to a person in order to save someone else's life' very clearly and without ambiguity

Notice how if we apply this rule to OP's case, a universe where we lie to murderers is not only concievable, but preferable.

does Kant say you are obligated to answer every question that is asked of you to the best of your ability?

This.

The categorical imperative is not a decision tree and doesn't obligate you to anything. The Critique of Pure Reason proved that reason could neither prove nor disprove the existence of God nor discover the absolute in external reality. This conclusion put morality on unstable ground. The CI intended to prove only that reason was capable of creating absolute moral limits for itself (not derived from the existence of God or other unverifiable). One can lie to the murderer and still recognize that lying is morally-rationally wrong.

This is obvious not only to anyone who has read the Critique of Pure Reason, but also to anyone who has read Kant's subsequent work on morals, little of which references the CI as a moral standard.

No, he was very confident with the ladies.

In a deontological world nobody wants to kill your son

also

If you lie to protect your son you act immorally; however your act isn't condemnable. You also act to save your son, which is a good will as described in Grundlegung/The second critique.

Read more Kant.

No, Kant literally had a party at his house every. single. evening.

But the experience of happiness is absolutely Good.

Aristotle thought Eudaimonia was a kind of pleasure. He's a utilitarian, he just has a Higher-Pleasure approach to reaching it.

For the record, even Schopenhauer is a utilitarian, he just thinks that life is more painful than pleasurable and therefore we should kill ourselves. All anti-natalists who base their reason for ending life because of its pain assuming that pain is bad in-itself (which it is) and are utilitarians.

>you will never party at Kant's house

>someone accuses something of being reddit
>actual redditors reveal themselves by being le sarcastic sheldon cooper and writing statements beginning with "yeah because" and misrepresenting the other people

>Schopenhauer is a utilitarian, he just thinks that life is more painful than pleasurable and therefore we should kill ourselves

NO

FUCKING

NO

READ PART 3 IN THE WORLD

ITS LITERALLY THE BEGINNING OF THE BOOK

STOP FUCKING LYIN FUCK YOU

NO ITS JUST AN END THAT PARTICIPATES OF THE END IN ITSELF HAS ANYONE IN THIS FUCKING THREAD ACTUALLY READ A SINGLE FUCKING PHILOSOPHY BOOK

NICOMACEAN ETHICS LAST PART

Now you're just appealing to authority. Look inside yourself, you know happiness is the only undeniable good we have available to our perception.
I meant the idea of Schopenhauer, not Schopenhauer himself. You really should learn that the meaning of the word is generally its use rather than some "definition"

Come on guys.

>Everything I don't like is Reddit
Leave

>>if someone wants to kill your son you should tell them where he is because lying is bad XD
i believe shopenhauer lengthy wrote that in such a situation you shouldn't tell that person where your son is

This man also believed that people that the public didn't like should be punished more harshly by the law because it increases our utility to see them suffer more than the disutility they incur from their suffering.

The man basically advocates for public torture. Not even the shittiest, most fallacious interpretation of Kant gets you there.

some wrongs outweigh other wrongs

This.

There is a greater wrong committed if you tell the man where your son is: you are helping a murder be accomplished. Thus by lying, the behavior which is universalized is not simply lying but, more specifically, lying to prevent a murder. This behavior is perfectly universalizable, and causes no moral qualms.

You're very good at baiting, I almost typed a very angry answer. One could even say you're a master baiter.

ABSOLUTELY CORRECT

PAGE 40 IN THE PLEIADES EDITION

LITERALLY THE VERY FIRST PART OF THE FUCKING BOOK

I only hope that through your anger you have learned to appreciate the higher pleasures in life.
I love you

I have a long time ago.
But spreading misinformation by taking advantage of the fact that nobody on this board actually reads is very malicious, and certainly not in line with any form of ethics.

Never attribute malice where ignorance would suffice

You clearly were not ignorant, user. Your claims were far too precise not to be ill-willed.

i read a really interesting paper in "The Thomist" which is a theophilosophical journal dealing heavily in Thomas Aquinas and his theophilosophy. it basically assumed deontics is true/good/Christian, and wondered how to best negotiate a nazi asking if there are any jews here when there are. it basically argued that protecting the weak/innocent is never lying, and information which leads to persecution of the weak/innocent is never "true" information. i'll have to track it down and get back to you

more like reddit: the interpretation of kant

bumping this great thread

not telling them where he is isn't lying

do whatever you want because morality is subjective and y0ur just a monkey on a floating rock in space

"I can't tell you because I must protect my son"

Roastie detected

This is why women shouldn't be allowed to participate in legislation. They are wonderful and often have very beautiful minds, but they don't understand law, loyalty and power.

Utilitarianism is literally the most infantile burger tier logic ever

DUDE PLEASURE GOOD, PAIN BAD