The Student Room Group

Kant

are those arguments in red defending Kant or Foot? foot is arguing it depends on what we want, therefore we have to have a reason. but then, at the end in green, it says the examples aren't categorical in same sense because they dont give us a reason to act, but Kant categorical imperative isn't concerned with reasons.

Foot we commonly contrast moral judgments with hypothetical imperatives. 2 uses of ought: 1) if person no longer wants what imperative assumes, or discover not suitable, then should no longer act on it -> take third left to get to restaurant. If no longer want to go to restaurant or right dead end, then no longer take third left. We also use words ought when we don’t withdraw our claim that you should do something -> “you shouldn’t lie”, “I dont care about truth, I want to trick him”. ”That’s irrelevant, shouldn’t lie” - can’t escape requirements to act just by showing doesn’t help you get what you want. However, those are about language and not enough to show kant is right that moral judgements are categorical in the sense he means, to do so, look at rules of etiquette: Handshakes should be brief. If what - want to fit in? even if you don’t want to fit in, it’s breach of etiquette if don’t release hand. We don’t withdraw the should depending on what person wants. These examples of non-hypothetical imperatives that aren’t unconditional like kant thinks moral judgements are, nor are they categorical in kants sense because don’t give us reason to act, reason to observe rules depends on what you want.
(edited 4 years ago)
Original post by FurtherMaths2020
are those arguments in red defending Kant or Foot? foot is arguing it depends on what we want, therefore we have to have a reason. but then, at the end in green, it says the examples are categorical in pants sense because they dont give us a reason to act, but Kant categorical imperative isn't concerned with reasons.

Foot we commonly contrast moral judgments with hypothetical imperatives. 2 uses of ought: 1) if person no longer wants what imperative assumes, or discover not suitable, then should no longer act on it -> take third left to get to restaurant. If no longer want to go to restaurant or right dead end, then no longer take third left. We also use words ought when we don’t withdraw our claim that you should do something -> “you shouldn’t lie”, “I dont care about truth, I want to trick him”. ”That’s irrelevant, shouldn’t lie” - can’t escape requirements to act just by showing doesn’t help you get what you want. However, those are about language and not enough to show kant is right that moral judgements are categorical in the sense he means, to do so, look at rules of etiquette: Handshakes should be brief. If what - want to fit in? even if you don’t want to fit in, it’s breach of etiquette if don’t release hand. We don’t withdraw the should depending on what person wants. These examples of non-hypothetical imperatives that aren’t unconditional like kant thinks moral judgements are, nor are they categorical in kants sense because don’t give us reason to act, reason to observe rules depends on what you want.

heya there , which examboard is this for ?:redface:
Original post by lloydmynumber
heya there , which examboard is this for ?:redface:


AQA

Quick Reply

Latest