ForgedinHell wrote:...
Can anyone please explain why such a racist, sexist, utter moron is considered a hero?
I think this more of your hyperbole. That people discuss Kant upon a philosophy website is because of his influence upon philosophy. That you think Kant a 'moron' and think that your hindsight is of any philosophical value just goes to show how little you understand about reading philosophy and points to you having read pretty much none. Funny how Albert Einstein cited Kants work on mathematics, language and logic as an early influence, but then Albert also said that, "Very few women are creative" and "As in all other fields, in science the way should be made easy for women. Yet it must not be taken amiss if I regard the possible results with a certain amount of skepticism. I am referring to certain restrictive parts of a woman's constitution that were given her by Nature and which forbid us from applying the same standard of expectation to women as to men.". Phew! Those physicists eh! What morons.
Pretty much any 17th male thinker would have held what we consider sexist and racist views, so for example Isaac Newton invested in a company that traded slaves and died a virgin because he believed carnality and domestic relations with women destroyed learning, should we discount his thoughts because of this? Gandhi uttered racist comments, does that make all his thoughts pointless? Americas space program and ballistic defence was developed by the Nazis, should you give it all up?
I note elsewhere that you repeat the old variation of Kants murderer problem and not lying to the Nazi about the Jews in the attic. From this you claim that his deontological(duty to you) ethics is immoral but there are numerous philosophical arguments that show that under his ethics he could lie to the Nazi or murderer. But lets say the Kantian can't and he's now stuck between two choices that challenge the categorical imperative, lie or hand over, I think the Kantian would follow his duty and tell the truth and then fight, even if it kills him, his family and the Jews as that would be his ethical duty. I guess you being some kind of utilitarian consequentialist would find this pointless but thats the point of the deontological(duty bound) ethic, you do it despite the consequences as its right. Lets put it this way, we take your approach and lie to the Nazi and then later find out that these Jews were murderers or rapists, have we done a moral act? Should we then call the Nazi? You also say elsewhere that morals and ethics are about feelings, do you included the Nazis feelings in this? As if so then they were acting morally and ethically.
p.s.
I note you've not responded to the quote from your avatar?
p.p.s
Oh! And the irony that you use 'douchebag' as an insult does not escape me but I think it will you.