>Kant, the smartest and most important philosopher in 300 yearsWas he retarded?
>>25633922He says you can kill the guy in self defense or defense of the other person, but you can't lie while doing it.
>>25633922You don’t have to lie. You can just refuse to tell them.
>>25633922Kant was a big influence on Abraham Lincoln
>>25633955Withholding the truth is also lying. That's why in court they make you swear you'll tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"
>>25634026>That's why in court they make you swear you'll tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"Did kant say that thoughie
>>25634026Kant is concerned with truth as a moral law, not a legal one. You’re obligated to tell the truth, but “I’m not going to tell you” is not an untrue statement.
>>25634044It's not moral to let your mother die because you were too autistic to lie to a murderer
>>25634052>hey, I want to murder your mother, where is she?>me:
Kant, like many Germans, had a penis that was several shades darker than the rest of his body, despite it being of average Caucasian dimension. When asked if I could fuck his mother rather than kill her under otherwise the same scheme in the OP he cried out>Mein Schwanz ist braun! Mein Schwanz ist braun! Lass meine Mutter in Ruhe – es sei denn, du hast auch einen Türken parat, der meinen jungfräulichen Arsch vögeln kann.
this thread feels very jewish
>>25634026"the whole truth" implies that the incomplete truth is still the truth. I'm not a liar if I don't answer a personal question like "what's your ssn?" Or a question like "when's the last time you had an erection?" Somethings can just be private
>>25634026And in court you're allowed to withhold an answer, you're just not allowed to lie. Silence doesn't lead to purjury, only lying does
>>25634026Ive heard it argued when you stretch the truth for example you say respond with "I dont know" because you truly do not know she is in the house that second, she could have jumped out or spontaneously combusted its ok because even though you arent totally truthful you still recognize the code.
>>25634244Four hours ago
>>25634379Actually the most Jewish post on this forum right now
>>25634225because its pro-lying or anti-truth?
So why does Kant not let you universalize a maxim of your action more complex than just "don't lie," such as "don't lie, unless it's to prevent a murder"?
>>25634387Is Sandel a jewish name? Pretty sure I heard it from him.
>>25634385That's not even a valid SSN, retard.
>>25634434only guy here asking a real question
>>25634403yes
"I'm not going to tell you that."
>>25634434Because a maxim has to be categorical and not hypothetical or conditional (ie, structured as an if-then statement), otherwise it doesn’t work as a universal moral law.
Lying is wrong, yes. It would be evil to lie, and you can’t possibly take responsibility for things you aren’t causing directly. >hurrr if you don’t lie he’ll kill her!And what if by killing her he unwittingly prevented a future tragedy where she kills a family in a car accident? Does that make the killing right in retrospect? It’s not uncommon for actions to have plenty of unforeseen consequences, especially given enough time. Chaos theory and all. You cannot judge actions by their future outcomes, but by their actual moral value.
>>25634434The universality principle only makes sense in light of its material counterpart to treat others as ends. Kant blunders by getting fixated on universality itself. It obviously doesn’t work, even Fichte rejects it. However to your q an exception is empirical and hence not really free but merely natural/hedonic. The law has to be absolutely free from empirical conditions in order to be truly free. It’s an uncompromising in-breaking that shatters all normie notions of comfort, pleasure, compromise.
>>25634434Kant has a huge boner for short sentences that contain the least reducible sort of ideas. Is there a reason for this? He thinks so. He sure doesn't lead by example though.
Does God have any real role in Kant’s system or is he just humoring his less enlightened contemporaries? The moral proof just seems like such rubbish. At best I think Kant is saying “sure kid believe in God if that’s the only way you can make sense of your freedom.”
>>25635091But there's no essential difference between those things, is there? Here's "don't lie" as an if-then statement: If you don't believe something, don't profess it to be true. Likewise you could just create a word that means "lies that are unjustified" and make your maxim not to tell those. Hell, that's already what we've done with the word "murder."
>>25635698You’re not wrong anon. Hegel points out in his PoS that absolutely any proposition is conceivably universal. This is one of the weakest points in Kant. However the stipulation I think still stands that Law needs to be absolute because independent of the sensible world. Whatever the laws themselves may be they would still not allow exceptions, in Kantian thought, and that’s independent of the issue of knowing what the law is to begin with.
>>25635698> Likewise you could just create a word that means "lies that are unjustified" and make your maxim not to tell thoseThe point is you’re including a certain amount of flexibility/ambiguity in your law that could easily be exploited. Thereby defeating the point of the law. You end up universalising a maxim which allows people to lie according to their own discretion, which is the same thing as having no law at all. It has to be absolute or it all falls apart
>>25633922Kant was retarded. He's popular because everyone else was/is also retarded.
>>25635401>You cannot judge actions by their future outcomes, but by their actual moral value.freudian slip lmao. and in a way you are causing it directly - I haven't read (much) Kant, but is it not the proposition that it is your 'duty' to do your duty, and thus to take responsibility for your duty, and the consequences into the future you argue for ignore the immediate future, ie Kants mom getting killed right after he tells the truth, let alone far off hypotheticals into the future.