1,166
edits
Difference between revisions of "Kant"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
m Tags: Visual edit Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
|||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
Next, given that all agents are rational, an action that is justified for one agent must be justified for all agents. Logically, it could not be moral for one agent to take an action, but immoral for another agent to take that very same action. Kant then lays out a "test", so to speak, to determine whether an action would be justified for all agents to take. | Next, given that all agents are rational, an action that is justified for one agent must be justified for all agents. Logically, it could not be moral for one agent to take an action, but immoral for another agent to take that very same action. Kant then lays out a "test", so to speak, to determine whether an action would be justified for all agents to take. | ||
Kant proposes we universalize an action to determine whether it would be moral for all agents to take. For instance, suppose Agent A wanted to murder Agent B. By universalizing the action of murdering, that is, imagining the world in which every single agent took that action, Agent B would murder Agent A. Therefore, Agent A would be unable to carry out the original action of murdering, because they would be dead. Clearly, this leads to a contradiction, which is illogical, and thus immoral under a Kantian framework. This is called a ''Contradiction in Conception'' because it is impossible to conceptualize a world in which both actions are being in taken. | Kant proposes we universalize an action to determine whether it would be moral for all agents to take. For instance, suppose Agent <math>A</math> wanted to murder Agent <math>B</math>. By universalizing the action of murdering, that is, imagining the world in which every single agent took that action, Agent <math>B</math> would murder Agent <math>A</math>. Therefore, Agent <math>A</math> would be unable to carry out the original action of murdering, because they would be dead. Clearly, this leads to a contradiction, which is illogical, and thus immoral under a Kantian framework. This is called a ''Contradiction in Conception'' because it is impossible to conceptualize a world in which both actions are being in taken. | ||
Another type of contradiction is called a ''Contradiction in Wills''. Here, it would be possible to conceptualize a world to universalize a given action, but it would not be an ideal world. For instance, if Agent A walks past Agent B, who is drowning in a pool, technically, Agent A is under no obligation to save Agent B by a contradiction of conception, as one could perfectly conceptualize a world in which drowning people were never saved. However, if Agent A was in the position of Agent B, they would presumably want to be saved, so therefore, by seeing themself in the place of the other agent, the world would not be ideal. Therefore, Agent A could be under some indirect obligation to save Agent B. As an aside, in the debate sense, this might only be relevant if there is no [[Act-Omission Distinction|act-omission distinction]]. | Another type of contradiction is called a ''Contradiction in Wills''. Here, it would be possible to conceptualize a world to universalize a given action, but it would not be an ideal world. For instance, if Agent <math>A</math> walks past Agent <math>B</math>, who is drowning in a pool, technically, Agent <math>A</math> is under no obligation to save Agent <math>B</math> by a contradiction of conception, as one could perfectly conceptualize a world in which drowning people were never saved. However, if Agent <math>A</math> was in the position of Agent <math>B</math>, they would presumably want to be saved, so therefore, by seeing themself in the place of the other agent, the world would not be ideal. Therefore, Agent <math>A</math> could be under some indirect obligation to save Agent <math>B</math>. As an aside, in the debate sense, this might only be relevant if there is no [[Act-Omission Distinction|act-omission distinction]]. | ||
In any case, the conclusion of a Kantian framework is usually a standard of "consistency with the categorical imperative", where the categorical imperative is this imperative previously mentioned to make sure that contradictions do not take place upon universalizing an action. You can refer to the sample cases for examples of Kantian offense employed in debate. | In any case, the conclusion of a Kantian framework is usually a standard of "consistency with the categorical imperative", where the categorical imperative is this imperative previously mentioned to make sure that contradictions do not take place upon universalizing an action. You can refer to the sample cases for examples of Kantian offense employed in debate. | ||