A murder goes to see Kant and wants to kill his son playing somewhere in the neighbor's yard...

>a murder goes to see

Jesus Christ how horrifying.

since when do people have duty to tell the truth? or even say anything at all.

kant would also be telling the truth if he told the murder that he would like him not to kill his son

Since we tried to be more than our nature

Libertarians are classical liberals senpai. Anything that sits in the Left side of the National Assembly is liberal, lefty.

I meant murderer.

Not universilizable, his duty to the moral law demands he tell the truth

Read Kant senpfam. He himself says lying is always morally wrong since it can't be universalized. Conditionally it might seem okay but it conflicts with the categorical imperative if it's unable to be univerzalized.

Then who the fuck is on the right? The fascists? The directions have changed since 19th century, my man

futile....
just accept what you are. Otherwise you're just searching for ego enhancing sense of self that relies on being "dutiful" to whatever the fuck that is usually decided by society and only exists to get resources out of you.

kant doesn't know that the murderer is a murderer. they don't wear special badges and nothing indicates he told kant "let me know where you son is so i can kill him" -- that is just what the narrator says his purpose was

also kant doesn't know the precise location of his son

But I'm not a good-for-nothing lying ape, user.

Also, accept what you are sounds a bit too much like hippie noble savage bullshit. Don't accept what you are, create what you want to be. That's also what civilization is about.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

Educate yourself american retard, liberalism is a pro-freemarket ideology

>sounds a bit too much like hippie noble savage bullshit
I got some ad hominem too
So you see yourself as a civilized man, I see that your ego is too far gone already. Chase asceticism all you want, you still need to eat and shit like the rest of them.

It's not an ad hominem. Noble savage is wrong not because it is ugly, but because it is untrue. You know nothing about me so I see no reason to respond regarding my ego. And believing in principles such as "lying is wrong" is not asceticism.

The directions are wrong and I will fight La Montagne until the king is restored or a bonaparte

>kant doesn't know that the murderer is a murderer.
The murderer says he's going to murder his son.
Kant knows the precise location of his son.

Do not wiggle out of this. Kant cannot plea ignorance as a way out.

gross

August Insurrection was utterly disgusting, I agree

That's not how the categorical imperative works.

from the wording in OP that isn't made clear at all

and no it's impossible for kant to know the precise location of his son unless he can see him and point him out. "playing somewhere in the yard" isn't very precise and this is based on what kant knows is last to be true, i.e. perhaps he saw his son playing in the yard but kant has left the vicinity so would not know the actual location of his son who could have left the yard by the time the murderer asks kant where he is; but if he was still in the vicinity then why would the murderer ask him (in the same vicinity) where is his son? this hypothetical doesn't bend the laws of what is possible purely because the proposition says something to be true, such as kant magically knows his son's location despite having no actual verification of the location at the point the murderer asks him for that information

also loving one's son has nothing to do with acting morally. directing a murderer to the location of one's son so he could be murdered is not sufficient evidence that the parent has done so out of a lack of love, especially if there is another reason for which he has acted in this way, i.e. on a moral basis

>it's impossible for kant to know the precise location of his son unless he can see him and point him out. "playing somewhere in the yard" isn't very precise and this is based on what kant knows is last to be true, i.e. perhaps he saw his son playing in the yard but kant has left the vicinity so would not know the actual location of his son who could have left the yard by the time the murderer asks kant where he is; but if he was still in the vicinity then why would the murderer ask him (in the same vicinity) where is his son? this hypothetical doesn't bend the laws of what is possible purely because the proposition says something to be true, such as kant magically knows his son's location despite having no actual verification of the location at the point the murderer asks him for that information
I don't see how not knowing the precise location of his son change anything. His son is playing in the neighbor's yard. Telling his location will likely result in his death. Is this similar to Hume's empiricism where because you don't know the cause and effect that it's unlikely to happen?

I mean, do you need his exact longitude and latitude? Or to be able to directly point him to know 100% that telling the truth will cause his death?

>His son is playing in the neighbor's yard.

kant doesn't know that if he can't verify his son is in the yard.

did you even read my post? i've already covered this.

>telling the truth will cause his death?

kant isn't a consequentialist. arguing along the lines of consequentialism is missing the point entirely

Ayn Rand is as liberal as it gets, her entire "ideology" is based around accommodating liberalism.

Your sentence structure is garbage. This is a nightmare to read. Did you even proofread this?

Not really. It's only after I looked at it again that I noticed how horribly it was structured.

why is that one crow laying down?

who cares faggot
the point is that Kant would have to tell the murderer where his son is.

Then why act like Kant is completely ignorant as though he doesn't know how cause and effect work a priori?

You should be the poster boy for why philosophy has become a synonym for pointless speculation. Autistic levels of pedantry.

he can't tell him something he doesn't know

because deontology is not consequentialism. kant can't actually know for sure what that consequences would be. it has nothing to do with his argument.

wondering about consequences is pointless speculation. i'm sorry that you don't quite get formal logic

imagine a world where every men let murderers kill their son. it would be terrible. kant has a moral obligation to try to stop the murderer

are you autistic?

>kant can't actually know for sure what that consequences would be.
Really? He can't know for sure that a murderer looking for his son going to the last known assured location of his son won't cause his death?
So you're telling me that because Kant isn't 100% sure that the surefire murderer won't find his son playing in the neighbor's yard, it's fine to tell the truth? He can't lie because he must uphold his duty to always tell the truth no matter what. Does Kant value upholding his deontology over the life of his son?

While Ayn Rand, who doesn't want to risk it, just uses her rationality to be on the safe side and lies to protect her son just in case because she values her son over her value of always telling the truth.

But imagine a world where every man lied! It would be even worse!

>He himself says lying is always morally wrong since it can't be universalized.
He was being a bit idealistic, we're goal oriented creatures, we will do what we believe will get us to our end goal. If his goal was that he doesn't want his son to die, and he values that end goal above himself feeling morally superior then he might just lie. Or keep his mouth shut to avoid the dilemma.

no i can just follow an argument even if i don't agree with it. are you?

>He can't know for sure that a murderer looking for his son going to the last known assured location of his son won't cause his death?

no. is he psychic?

>he can't tell him something he doesn't know
Kant knows the last location of his son which, while not 100% absolute certain he's in the neighbor's yard since Kant cannot see him directly, is still objectively where the son is narratively.

He can't be 100% sure, but still very close to 100% so it doesn't matter

>no i can just follow an argument even if i don't agree with it. are you?
maybe you can stop shitting up the thread

So because Kant isn't 100% sure, he's just going to risk putting his son in danger?

yeah but the narrative is saying that kant knows for sure where his son is because he has magical powers since there is no other possible way for kant to know where his son is even if the narrative says. the narrative may as well suggest that his son is also a dog.

He has to tell the murderer even if he is 100% sure

that's what you have been doing because you don't know how deontology works even though it's the subject of this thread. what are you doing here other than to make snide remarks towards people who know more than you? do you just want memes so you can join in? you're a big guy.

>Hello I am murderer, where is your son? I want to kill him :3
>He is playing in da neighbour's yard.
>Uh, thank you but can I have the exact coordinates of his location? I can not find him otherwise
>No I don't have a tracking system
>Damn, looks like I won't be murdering today....

I guess that's a fault of the narration, let me correct it.
The narrative knows that the son is 100% in the yard but Kant doesn't know. He only knows that it's where he last saw his son play and where he likely is since he has no knowledge of his son having left the location.

assuming that's my only post

The murderer doesn't care if Kant isn't sure. The reason the murderer is asking Kant is because he saw the son and Kant together before he went to see Kant. All he's asking Kant is where he is (or where Kant think he is) where Kant has to tell the truth.

that has nothing to do with it. if the narrative said 'kant tells the murderer to the best of his knowledge where his son is' then it would make more sense but the narrative is being lazy and illogical. kant doesn't "know" where his son is just because the narrative says, since knowing in this case is a posteriori knowledge. sons and neighbours' yards are not linked a priori

for you

how does kant know he is a murderer? because the murderer says "i am a murderer"? lol

Maybe he can see into his neighbour's yard.

He has put up ads on the town board (with a picture of his face) and Kant has seen them

maybe

>Noble savage is wrong not because it is ugly, but because it is untrue
You (or Kant for that matter) fail to present to me why the truth is inherently good. I don't think his son dying is a bad thing either, but I assume Kant as an ape in clothing wants his genetics to carry on, and very willing to take away from the murderers rational decision making by lying to him to get the out come Kant himself desires.

> You know nothing about me so I see no reason to respond regarding my ego.
As you said yourself you don't want your persona to be that of an ape, which seems you equate to being undisciplined and ruled by nature, basically your Id, you can see how your ego is being revealed by your desires to rise above your nature.

and how does he know that the murderer is in fact going to murder his son?

I honestly thought this was pasta / bait with poor English engineered into it specifically designed to trigger grammar Nazis.

I was impressed until I learned it was a genuine effort.

Now, my heart weeps.

>le left right dichotomy

Retard detected

Kant ordered the murder himself

Immanuel Kant's theory of ethics is considered deontological for several different reasons.[9][10] First, Kant argues that to act in the morally right way, people must act from duty (deon).[11] Second, Kant argued that it was not the consequences of actions that make them right or wrong but the motives of the person who carries out the action.

Kant's argument that to act in the morally right way one must act purely from duty begins with an argument that the highest good must be both good in itself and good without qualification.[12] Something is "good in itself" when it is intrinsically good, and "good without qualification", when the addition of that thing never makes a situation ethically worse. Kant then argues that those things that are usually thought to be good, such as intelligence, perseverance and pleasure, fail to be either intrinsically good or good without qualification. Pleasure, for example, appears not to be good without qualification, because when people take pleasure in watching someone suffer, this seems to make the situation ethically worse. He concludes that there is only one thing that is truly good:

Nothing in the world—indeed nothing even beyond the world—can possibly be conceived which could be called good without qualification except a good will.[12]

Kant then argues that the consequences of an act of willing cannot be used to determine that the person has a good will; good consequences could arise by accident from an action that was motivated by a desire to cause harm to an innocent person, and bad consequences could arise from an action that was well-motivated. Instead, he claims, a person has a good will when he 'acts out of respect for the moral law'.[12] People 'act out of respect for the moral law' when they act in some way because they have a duty to do so. So, the only thing that is truly good in itself is a good will, and a good will is only good when the willer chooses to do something because it is that person's duty, i.e. out of "respect" for the law. He defines respect as "the concept of a worth which thwarts my self-love."[13]

Would Kant also insist that a military general inform the opposing force of the location and route of his army?
No, because the general has to weigh the value of his soldier's lives and the well-being of the country he fights for against a mutual "dishonesty".
Kant would be all for you owning up to eating all of your roommate's cookies, unlike Rand.

...

Kant is sitting in a room with three other people. Kant farts and every person in the room smell the fart at exactly the same time, including Kant. One of the other three people accompanying Kant ask, "Who farted?" Kant must tell the person enquiring into the corporeal origin of the fart that it was him who farted.

A braver man than me.

>'kant tells the murderer to the best of his knowledge where his son is'
Well I guess, it is a fault of the narration. Let me rewrite the scenario.

Kant's son was last seen by Kant playing somewhere in the yard a few minutes ago. Kant can't see him right now but he's pretty sure he's still there since it's the last place he saw him recently. A murderer comes and asks where is the son so that he might kill him. Kant has seen him on the news as a crazed murderer who is sought after by the police. Although it can always just be someone who just really really looks like the murderer Kant saw on TV. Kant can't know for sure at 100% that his son is playing in the yard but he tells him anyways the location of his son because he cannot lie out of duty to never lying. God, seeing everything, knows that the the kid is actually still playing in the yard, even if Kant doesn't know he's still there.The murderer, knowing that Kant always tells the truth, goes to the yard and finds the son. killing him.

Ayn Rand's son was last seen by Ayn Rand playing somewhere in the yard a few minutes ago. She can't see him but she's pretty sure he's still there since it's the last place she saw him recently. A murderer comes and asks where is the son so that he might kill him. Ayn Rand has seen him on the news as a crazed murderer who is sought after by the police. Although it can always just be someone who just really really looks like the murderer Ayn Rand saw on TV, she can't be sure. Ayn Rand can't know for sure at 100% that her son is playing in the yard since he might have ran off somewhere else. However, Ayn Rand uses her rationality and assess the situation. Although she always tells the truth and highly values being truthful, she values her son more than lying, and so tell the murderer that her son is a few blocks away. God, seeing everything, knows that the the kid is actually still playing in the yard, even if Ayn Rand doesn't know he's still there. The murderer, knowing that Ayn Rand highly values being truthful, believes her and goes across the street and does not find him. This allows Ayn Rand to find her son and hide him.

Kant does not love his son and told a murderer where to find him because he had to always tell the truth
Ayn Rand loves her son and protected him from getting killed by lying, even if she always tells the truth.

Kant told the truth out of duty.
Ayn Rand told a lie out of individualism and selfishness

Is this correct?

>Pleasure, for example, appears not to be good without qualification, because when people take pleasure in watching someone suffer, this seems to make the situation ethically worse.
>Nothing in the world—indeed nothing even beyond the world—can possibly be conceived which could be called good without qualification except a good will.[12]
It seems ethically worse to help a murderer cause suffering just out of sheer desire to express good will, in order for kant to feel like he is in accordance to moral law.
Also depending on what moral law you follow it is also not "good will" to aid a murderer in locating his victim, I'd venture to say it'd be "morally correct" to protect the probable victim.

Kant is a faggot. As much as i'd enjoy having this bitch be wrong, unfortunately in this Scenario, she seems quite right. Yay for universal ethic' systemas.

boom boom boom

Ayn Rand 1
Kant 0

A murderer goes to Rand's house and asks where her son is so he can kill him

>Fucking soviets! This is why i fled russia. Fuck you, Stalin

he's not willing a murderer to kill his son

He's not preventing it either. I guess Kant doesn't love his son as much as his duty to always tell the truth.

>He's not preventing it either.

so?

>I guess Kant doesn't love his son as much as his duty to always tell the truth.

irrelevant

>so?
Ahhh so what if he's not trying anything to prevent his son's death, keeping your duty to always tell the truth is what matters! I mean you 100% can't be sure where's the son, so there's no risk, right? I mean, I'm not a consequentialist, so it doesn't matter if my son happens to be in the same spot he was last seen. I didn't do anything bad because I didn't know my actions would absolutely cause the death of my son. It's morally just to always tell the truth and let your son potentially get killed!

>irrelevant
It's irrelevant that Kant would've let his son get killed? That's cold.
Let's see what Ayn Rand has to say on the concept of duty.

>One of the most destructive anti-concepts in the history of moral philosophy is the term “duty.”

>It's an anti-concept that is an artificial, unnecessary and rationally unusable term designed to replace and obliterate some legitimate concept. The term “duty” obliterates more than single concepts; it is a metaphysical and psychological killer: it negates all the essentials of a rational view of life and makes them inapplicable to man’s actions.

>The meaning of the term “duty” is the moral necessity to perform certain actions for no reason other than obedience to some higher authority, without regard to any personal goal, motive, desire or interest.

It does seem to be what Kan't doing with Universality. Ignoring his rationality that the guy he saw on TV that looks exactly like a murderer sought after by the police is at his home asking where's Kan't son so that he can kill him. And because Kan't isn't 100% sure, he doesn't have to use his rationality because he doesn't care about his son. There's a insane chance that perhaps his son went to play somewhere else, so why bother lying? Imagine if everyone in society lied, no one could trust truth! It's, Kant's duty to always tell the truth or else all of society will crumble.
Always telling the truth is more important than his own son's life, right?

Depends what you define as "moral law". If lying is bad then why is allowing and aiding in murder okay?
Kant is selfish either way. His desire to act ethically and not lie is a selfish endeavor to feel morally correct (premise of which is in question as noted above) and he sacrifices his son for it. If he does lie then he is going against his own beliefs in order to get the outcome he desires.
Depends which he values more, his son or his moral superiority, which is all contrived and subjective, and not "good" in any real way except in how he personally views himself and humanity.

>Depends which he values more, his son or his moral superiority,
Exactly, a hierarchy of values, as Ayn Rand describes it. But the problem is worse because due of his duty to Universality, Kant will be forced select his moral superiority over the life of his son. Kant might have greatly loved his son but the moment he was demanded to tell the truth, he potentially put his son at risked of being killed. All while hoping that perhaps his son went somewhere else than the last place he was last seen.

>I didn't do anything bad because I didn't know my actions would absolutely cause the death of my son.

yeah that's the basis of it. i mean you can say 'but consequences' all you want but it still won't be relevant since the consequences are speculative, based on information that may or may not even be truthful. they don't factor into the choice.

this kant son murder thing is obviously thought up by someone unfamiliar with kant's ideas. there is no holistic interpretation, just memes

the key word is 'will'. aiding and allowing are not willing.

>His desire to act ethically and not lie is a selfish endeavor to feel morally correct

i don't think 'feeling' and 'desiring' are relevant. intrinsic good isn't based on what one feels as good

So upholding the truth from his duty to universality is truly more important than the consequence of potentially losing his son?

>this kant son murder thing is obviously thought up by someone unfamiliar with kant's ideas.
It's just a small twist of the old thought experiment. If some random person tells Kant that he wants to murder some other random person, Kant will tell the truth and it won't really matter because Kant has no personal attachment to this random person who might be killed. And Kant can wiggle out of feeling bad from accomplishing his duties to always tell the truth because perhaps the person the murderer is looking for is gone, or the authorities will stop him after Kant makes a phone call. It's very easy to show apathy towards someone you don't really know getting killed.

But if you change the scenario to something more empathetic, someone closer to Kant than a random stranger, it shows shows his lack of rationality when the proximity of damage is extremely close, and the veil of darkness in causality is minimal. When simply because Kant isn't 100% certain, he shuts off his mind.

Ayn Rand shows rationality.
Kant shows that he's an inhuman robot, following his duty and nothing more.

more important? more rational

>But if you change the scenario to something more empathetic

i.e. more emotional, less rational

>... it shows shows his lack of rationality

the exact opposite is true. it demonstrates an adherence to rational principles, as in those derived through logic, which are separate from the consequences.

Why is it assumed that Ayn Rand's desire to preserve her son's life is caused by selfishness? Suppose the murderer asked Rand which way the guy in the blue shirt went because he wants to murder than blue-shirted man, then Rand lied to mislead the murderer. Would that necessarily be out of selfishness for the same mysterious reason? Why cannot empathy by the reason in both cases?

>i don't think 'feeling' and 'desiring' are relevant. intrinsic good isn't based on what one feels as good

That is exactly what I'm questioning, the premise that always telling the truth is intrinsically good. And because I don't accept this concept I put forth that Kant is acting on his feelings and desires to be "civilized" through practicing "good will".

Because if Ayn Rand didn't give a shit about her son, she would've told the murderer where to find him. She would have felt apathetic to his death and let him die. Not out a sense of duty like Kant, but because she doesn't care. Ayn Rand gains happiness from having her son around however, she also values telling the truth above all else, so it becomes a sacrifice to break her stance to always be truthful for the sake of her son that gives her happiness.

>Suppose the murderer asked Rand which way the guy in the blue shirt went because he wants to murder than blue-shirted man, then Rand lied to mislead the murderer.
If there is nothing to gain, Ayn Rand would probably do whatever, though she would likely lie to protect his right to live.

>Why cannot empathy by the reason in both cases?
Because you feel more empathy for your own blood than a stranger, and it has more impact that way.

Here's a fun proposition, is it good to tell the truth about everything which may hurt a person? Universality says that if everyone told the truth which hurt everyone, it would be bad.
Therefore telling the truth is intrinsically bad.

Isn't universality based on consequentialism?
Kant posits that lying is bad because it devalues the truth, but isn't the opposite true, that lying can cause harm, therefore it's good to tell the truth? Kant accepts that telling the truth is intrinsically good because it's good without any real reason, but isn't the reason he thinks so simply because of the consequenses of lying?

>le there's no right and left meme

Super retard detected.

I'm having trouble with 'empathy' being equated to 'self interest.' If Rand is protecting her son out of empathy for her son, that does not necessitate that she has self interest in protecting her son.

If we say that Rand empathizes with her son, we can say that if Rand's son is happy, then Rand is generally happier for it. And if Rand's son is sad, then Rand is generally sadder for it. And if Rand's son is sad, then Rand wants to make her son happy.

Now comes the question, does Rand seek to alleviate the sadness in her son because, due to the empathetic bond, it will alleviate the sadness in her, or does she seek to alleviate the sadness in her son because, due to the empathetic bond, she feels inexplicably compelled to concern herself with another's well-being?

I know that there is a distinction in here somewhere because there's a bittersweet pang when your best friend announces that he's moving to a far off place to get a fresh new start on life, and there's a very different feeling of concern when you learn that a different far away friend is in distress.

He was murdered.

Hah