Kant's Morality do not depend on the casuistry [Trolley Dilemma] approach but rather banked on the Framework and System approach. So there no prisoner's dilemma.-1- wrote: ↑Wed Dec 26, 2018 2:59 pmI don't read books per se, they are too long for my attention span. And this is actually not a joke.
And I actually don't know what your view is. You wrote it down, but I could not or else did not want to follow it. Too many capitalized, too many bolded, too many differently emphasized text... you sure do know how to lose your readers.
But I know this much: Kant's idea is that to do only those acts which we would approve of if everyone does that particular deed in the given circumstances.
This is a prisoner's dilemma. If, for instance, everyone works towards a common good, such as no theft of private property, then one might say, "hey, nobody is going to steal from me, but if I steal from someone, in a way that I can get away with it unsuspected and unpunished, then I'll get an advantage in social standing. So I will steal given the proper circumstances."
There you have it, AV.
The trolley problem approach is never effective as it is impossible to generate the all possible trolley scenarios [each very specific] within humanity.
In the Kantian approach, there is the Moral and Ethics aspect.
The ideal morality is everyone must be morally perfect and thus capable of self-managing their own moral competence and ALL are involved in establishing the moral absolutes as guides as a controls against the practical [ethics].
In this case, because all are morally perfect no one will steal from another.
Btw, if you do not read any philosopher thoroughly then you must acknowledge your views on his/her philosophy is obviously limited and not credible.
From the moral aspect of the Kantian approach, the perfect collective will establish objective moral absolutes as guides.B. is that moral guides are what? Tour guides? guide rails? "This maxim of Kant (ibid) shalt guide my moral behaviour." What does that actually mean, guide my behaviour? That sometimes I follow it, and sometimes I don't, depending on the inner and outer landscape of circumstances at a time?
If you can explain what you and Kant meant by "guide", then I'll be closer to the truth. At this point I am forced to think that a moral "guide" derived from nothing by intellectualized speculative means is at best a weak proposition, and lo and behold, at this point in my view it provides no more certainty than a prisoners dilemma.
These moral absolutes are not any intellectualized speculations but intellectualized on the basis that all humans are sort of philosophy-kings and are perfectly moral. This is nevertheless an ideal which is to be used as a guide.
All are to be philosophy-kings and morally perfect and they will establish perfect moral absolutes as guides. They are not to be enforced.
The question is how can we expect ALL humans to be philosophy-kings. This is an absolute ideal. Whilst ideals are impossible, it is possible for humanity to assist all humans to be as near as possible to be philosophy-kings in the future given the trend of the current exponential expansion of knowledge and technology. It is not something utopic, I am optimistic this is tenable as the trend is evident in relation to morality.
This is the critical step that the Kantian approach is banking on.
On the practical side, what we have is Ethics, where moral absolute [guides] are translated into maxims. e.g. Thou Shall not Steal, period, not ifs and buts.
But humans - being human - are not infallible and thus there will be a percentage people who will steal.
Now because there is an ideal guide or standard, there is something [fixed & absolute] for what is going on in reality to be compared against.
This comparison will produce a variance between the ideal and the actual which we shall call the Moral/Ethics Gap.
The first to take action will be the individual who is supposed to be morally perfect. In this case the individual will have to question why his conscience is not working and thus has to work on his impulse control related to stealing. If not effective then the collective will assist.
The Kantian Framework and System of Morality and Ethics is like [crude analogy] a Thermostat System, where we set the optimal standard of temperature and it is up to the relevant machinery to adjust to close the gap between the actual conditions and the optimal standard that is set.
The Kantian System is definitely much more refined and sophisticated since it involves humans and especially ALL humans working against absolute moral ideals.
The moral absolute as ideals enable FIXED GOAL POSTS to be set which will drive continual improvements towards the perfect ideals establish by autonomous [full freedom] morally perfect humans. Note from experience, shifting goal posts are not effective in the long run.
In the case of consequentialism there are only shifting goal posts relative the whims of 7+ billion individuals. There are no fixed goal posts to drive continuous improvements towards the ideal.