Kant's Categorical Imperative 1 Explained

[Veritas Aequitas]

Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative [CI] Made Easy
with Professor Rick T. Miller
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2j43QNuIaI

Note there are 5 formulations within Kant's CI.
The above is an explanation of merely Formulation 1 and it gives one an interesting explanation what the formulation is about.

Whilst I note it is interesting in itself, the above explanation do not represent the full context of the CI within Kantian Morality and Ethics.

Any views on the above explanations?

[Eodnhoj7]

Hi hypocrite,

You do understand Kant believed in God right? You cannot take his reasoning seriously as it is just an extension of his beliefs.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-religion/

[Veritas Aequitas]

Hi hypocrite,

You do understand Kant believed in God right? You cannot take his reasoning seriously as it is just an extension of his beliefs.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-religion/

Resorting to pejoratives reveals you are running out of arguments and turning to the primal instincts. This is very typical and I experience that a lot. It is inevitable because the arguments for God is based on faith and groundless.

At the extreme is like Antifa who resort to primal violence when they run out of rational arguments.

Kant was a deist and not a theist.
Kant's approach to deism can be easily interpreted in a non-deistic or non-theistic approach.
That Kant chose to be deist is more likely to blend in with the attitudes of the majority during his time, otherwise he would out of his professor job. [He was warned and threatened by the authority for his critique of religion -Christianity]. I speculate he could also be a closet gay since he did not marry and had a man-servant his whole life.
Regardless what is critical is the theories and principles that can be justified rationally.

[-1-]

Kant was a deist and not a theist.

It is true. But he did imbue his god with qualities that could not be derived from observing nature. Therefore he had very much also the tendencies of a theist.

Kant WANTED to be a deist, but that is not possible to be under the present circumstances. By present circumstances I meant now, in the foreseeable future, and going back about a million years.

Being a deist at any time in written history is comparable to today's version of wanting to become a communist to support the red Bolshevik Marxist-Leninist party.

The biggest problem of Gnosticism is that there are no clues given whatsoever, without assuming in the first place some supernatural elements.

[Eodnhoj7]

Hi hypocrite,

You do understand Kant believed in God right? You cannot take his reasoning seriously as it is just an extension of his beliefs.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-religion/

Resorting to pejoratives reveals you are running out of arguments and turning to the primal instincts. This is very typical and I experience that a lot. It is inevitable because the arguments for God is based on faith and groundless.

At the extreme is like Antifa who resort to primal violence when they run out of rational arguments.

Kant was a deist and not a theist.
Kant's approach to deism can be easily interpreted in a non-deistic or non-theistic approach.
That Kant chose to be deist is more likely to blend in with the attitudes of the majority during his time, otherwise he would out of his professor job. [He was warned and threatened by the authority for his critique of religion -Christianity]. I speculate he could also be a closet gay since he did not marry and had a man-servant his whole life.
Regardless what is critical is the theories and principles that can be justified rationally.

Deism, derived from the Latin word "deus" meaning "god", is a theological/philosophical position that combines the rejection of revelation and authority as a source of religious knowledge with the conclusion that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of a single creator of the universe.

http://www.bing.com/search?q=deism&qs=n ... B5CBFCD4A9

theism:
belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.Compare with deism.

http://www.bing.com/search?q=theism&qs= ... 0B38DFE63C


The fault of Deism, according to your argument, is that while it reject revelation as a means of truth the revelation of "man as measurer" through reason observes reason as having revelatory elements.

[HexHammer]

Kant is irrelevant, ok has like 0.01% relevance, but else he's just a carrot for clueless people.

[-1-]

Some people are incredibly enamoured by the theories they subscribe to.

Arguing with them showing the failure of their dandy theories is futile.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Some people are incredibly enamoured by the theories they subscribe to.

Arguing with them showing the failure of their dandy theories is futile.

Point is I have spent a lot of time in researching Kant's Framework and System of Morality and Ethics which I believe is very tenable [not immediately] in the near future given the trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge and technology.

What is critical is whether I have any justification and argument to support my views.
Btw, we are merely scratching the surface in this case.

[Dalek Prime]

Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative [CI] Made Easy
with Professor Rick T. Miller
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2j43QNuIaI

Note there are 5 formulations within Kant's CI.
The above is an explanation of merely Formulation 1 and it gives one an interesting explanation what the formulation is about.

Whilst I note it is interesting in itself, the above explanation do not represent the full context of the CI within Kantian Morality and Ethics.

Any views on the above explanations?

I can't view it on my old iPad, but if the imperative is regarding that no one can be used for anothers benefit, I quite agree with that.

[Veritas Aequitas]

In our world of gravitational force, if a stone that you drop falls up instead of down, then the theory of gravity is falsified. There is no amount of positive results that can reverse the effect on the theory of the stone that falls up.

Or if you say
1. All qs are ps;
2. But one q is not a p;
2 has been observed;
Therefore 1 is false.

Same here. Categorical imperative is a doctrine that whatever you do, you must choose those things to do that you want to be universal.

This is not a joke. The words in it have precise meaning, and they lay down in a precise, unambiguous way what the author meant. If you find one or more, but one is enough, instances when this a priori can't be true, then the entire expression and meaning can be and must be declared false.

People will put up resistance to this thought because it is new, and does not appear in the literature. I created it.

My criticism is, nevertheless, unassailable.

Have you read what the author [Kant] wrote to understand [not necessary agree] his original intentions within the full context of this overall theme?
I don't think you have, if yes, you did not get the correct theme.
You don't seem to understand Kant's CI in its full context at all.

I have spent a LOT of time on Kant's philosophy so I know what I am talking about.
Point is do not be misled by the term 'Imperative' or the specific casuistry cases misinterpreted by many.

[Dalek Prime]

Kant is irrelevant, ok has like 0.01% relevance, but else he's just a carrot for clueless people.

So that's what happened....

[Charm]

Hi hypocrite,

You do understand Kant believed in God right? You cannot take his reasoning seriously as it is just an extension of his beliefs.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-religion/

Kant was a great guy; but reasoning your way to morality is a lost cause.. No moral act is rational... Injustice (general immorality) is always justified.. Morality is valid whether one lives of dies.. Since the object of all reason is life, and a better life for the reasoner, no line of reason is valid or reasonable which results in the death of the reasoner... This is not true of morality which takes no account of our material and physical existence, and only cares for our common and spiritual existence.. If I jump into a river to save the life of a stranger the action cannot be rationally justified, but then, it does not have to be.. What is reasonable too, is seldom moral.. I think what philosophers miss in regard to morals is that reason can be found after the fact to justify moral behavior, but no individual can reason himself to death... People die all the time for their morality, and it is because they find dying easier than living with their immorality.. Morality does not grow out of what we think, but out of who we are, and who we are is far older than our mastery of reason.. Morality is pre- rational ... All babies are moral.. All children raised in love are moral, and in this regard the seeds of reason in the moral life grow into the tree of death.. I don't want to over state my case.. If people were not mostly moral everything would fall apart quickly.. The great advance of people like Baudelaire, Freud, and Nietzsche was to bury the age of reason.. People are not reasonable, and yet unreasonable is still a terrible insult... Primarily, people are reasonable in pursuit of unreasonable goals.. It is like flying.. Once it was impossible, and the desire to fly is irrational, and yet reason across many branches of science and technology make flight possible.. It is still an irrational desire..

[Eodnhoj7]

Hi hypocrite,

You do understand Kant believed in God right? You cannot take his reasoning seriously as it is just an extension of his beliefs.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-religion/

Kant was a great guy; but reasoning your way to morality is a lost cause.. No moral act is rational... Injustice (general immorality) is always justified.. Morality is valid whether one lives of dies.. Since the object of all reason is life, and a better life for the reasoner, no line of reason is valid or reasonable which results in the death of the reasoner... This is not true of morality which takes no account of our material and physical existence, and only cares for our common and spiritual existence.. If I jump into a river to save the life of a stranger the action cannot be rationally justified, but then, it does not have to be.. What is reasonable too, is seldom moral.. I think what philosophers miss in regard to morals is that reason can be found after the fact to justify moral behavior, but no individual can reason himself to death... People die all the time for their morality, and it is because they find dying easier than living with their immorality.. Morality does not grow out of what we think, but out of who we are, and who we are is far older than our mastery of reason.. Morality is pre- rational ... All babies are moral.. All children raised in love are moral, and in this regard the seeds of reason in the moral life grow into the tree of death.. I don't want to over state my case.. If people were not mostly moral everything would fall apart quickly.. The great advance of people like Baudelaire, Freud, and Nietzsche was to bury the age of reason.. People are not reasonable, and yet unreasonable is still a terrible insult... Primarily, people are reasonable in pursuit of unreasonable goals.. It is like flying.. Once it was impossible, and the desire to fly is irrational, and yet reason across many branches of science and technology make flight possible.. It is still an irrational desire..

All morality is a means of being through which we give structure to our actions, and hence ourselves, through our ability to apply or eliminate boundaries at the intellectual, emotional or physical level.

This structuring of the self and the environment through the self, by this application of limits in turn results in the structure inherent within all being.

In simpler, more common terms, the golden rule is an act of creating, maintaining, or destroy the fabric of being through the limits which form it.

People are reasonable whether they intend it to be that way or not..."I do "x" because "y" feels good" is still an act of reasoning...however base it may be.

[-1-]

Have you read what the author [Kant] wrote to understand [not necessary agree] his original intentions within the full context of this overall theme?
I don't think you have, if yes, you did not get the correct theme.
You don't seem to understand Kant's CI in its full context at all.

I have spent a LOT of time on Kant's philosophy so I know what I am talking about.
Point is do not be misled by the term 'Imperative' or the specific casuistry cases misinterpreted by many.

Your first assumption in a question form is right. I did not read Kant.

However, your argument rests on unknown facts to me. You have to present arguments, not say that "there is a text out there that explains why you are wrong, -1-." This, what you said and how you said it, is not an argument.

I started with a "Only do those things that you think should be universal." I did not read the book, and did not have to, to understand this statement.

This statement is what Kant proposed. I said, this can never be fully realized. And I stated the argument why. You come back and tell me NOT that my argument is wrong, but that there is a book out there that says differently.

Well, say what the book says. This is not a forum where we argue by saying there is a book out there. You state your claim, and try to prove it or defend it against criticism. I criticized the statement by Kant, and to defend against my criticism, you must present an argument, not some vague reference to a book that says something.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Have you read what the author [Kant] wrote to understand [not necessary agree] his original intentions within the full context of this overall theme?
I don't think you have, if yes, you did not get the correct theme.
You don't seem to understand Kant's CI in its full context at all.

I have spent a LOT of time on Kant's philosophy so I know what I am talking about.
Point is do not be misled by the term 'Imperative' or the specific casuistry cases misinterpreted by many.

Your first assumption in a question form is right. I did not read Kant.

However, your argument rests on unknown facts to me. You have to present arguments, not say that "there is a text out there that explains why you are wrong, -1-." This, what you said and how you said it, is not an argument.

I started with a "Only do those things that you think should be universal." I did not read the book, and did not have to, to understand this statement.

This statement is what Kant proposed. I said, this can never be fully realized. And I stated the argument why. You come back and tell me NOT that my argument is wrong, but that there is a book out there that says differently.

Well, say what the book says. This is not a forum where we argue by saying there is a book out there. You state your claim, and try to prove it or defend it against criticism. I criticized the statement by Kant, and to defend against my criticism, you must present an argument, not some vague reference to a book that says something.

Note you wrote this earlier,

Same here. Categorical imperative is a doctrine that whatever you do, you must choose those things to do that you want to be universal.

This is not a joke. The words in it have precise meaning, and they lay down in a precise, unambiguous way what the author meant. If you find one or more, but one is enough, instances when this a priori can't be true, then the entire expression and meaning can be and must be declared false.

...
Therefore the Categorical Imperative fails because there is at least one instance where it CAN'T be made to work. It is a priori impossible in logical ways.

My point is if you have read Kant's philosophy thoroughly and understood his theories you will not be making the above [seemingly so sure] conclusion.
Thus I refer you to his book.