| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Produktinformation
|
Tags(Was ist das?)Bei einem Tag handelt es sich um ein Schlagwort, das zum Produkt passt.
Tags erleichtern allen Kunden die Suche und die Sortierung ihrer Lieblingsprodukte. |
Kant can upset "free thinkers" by appearing to place euphemisms for the Golden Rule and God with his school terms the Categorical Imperative and the Thing-in-Itself. The theory of a Categorical Imperative, to act as though your actions were to form the universal law for the acts of others is an impossible concept to fully sound. You may believe if I do A then B will happen, but possibly G or Q will. Acts do not have morally strict correlative coefficients.
Consider what would happen if Kant's formula were used that your decisions or behavior were to legislate the behavior or decisions of everyone else. Though thieving from others deprives them of their property, it would also maintain a circulating economy with immediate returns and potentially eliminate class-conflict. People who wanted things would be able to find those things when they want or need to use them, and while left in disuse others could capitalize on the property's availability. If everyone physically assaulted each other, everyone would be more likely to have the skills and discipline learned from the martial arts. Were the world to all use marijuana, no violent monopolies could profit from the plant and the likelihood of the above all-fight-all scenario would probably be attenuated. Should humankind unaminously lie, people's discernment, questioning, and imagination would be more commonly employed.
I am not of the persuasion Kant's philosophy can stand unless its vacant space is filled with philanthropic sentiments of noble humanitarian instincts by whoever lives by it. To say you should act as you would have all others act, in the first formula Kant gives, has no more compelling reason to be accepted than the hypothetical situation where everyone acts as you would not act, leaving you to existentially resolve your best response. The aggregate of various acts that fall into the slots of different types of behavior are stimulated by a person's idea of the best life, but evidence here is as subjective as political welfare.
When Kant writes of his Utopian kingdom of ends he strikes on a sympathetic chord heard through most ethical teachings and ideology. Too bad Kant still lacks a proof that one person should aim for the happiness of another or all. I could object about the slippery-slope or snowball effect fallacy or talk about the sociological difficulties, the insurmountable charge of conflicts between duty and right, but maybe someone already has a paper or journal discussing this that Internet serves. Kant's niceties of distinction, steadiness and smooth argumentation is more groomed than The Godfather, but Kant is almost as hard to read as Joyce. My introductory philosophy instructor forewarns, "If you can read and understand Kant, you can probably read and understand anything." So, as of Everest, Kant's worth the challenge just by being there.
|
Das Forum zu diesem Produkt
Fragen stellen, Meinungen austauschen, Einblicke gewinnen Aktive Diskussionen in ähnlichen Foren
Kundendiskussionen durchsuchen
|
Ähnliche Foren
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|