Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was in a heated political conversation at an SF site that brought up a variant of this question. The original statement being [SIZE=2][SIZE=2]"a dispute over whether Kant would or wouldn't ***ch-slap you in Starbucks (or something)."[/SIZE][/SIZE] (Interestingly my views have somewhat evolved since that debate, but it was almost a decade ago.)
What started that was a digression, of a kind, on Kantian ethics. I'm not actually very philosophically astute. I find something on Kantian ethics in the following.
I was in a heated political conversation at an SF site that brought up a variant of this question. The original statement being [SIZE=2][SIZE=2]"a dispute over whether Kant would or wouldn't bitchslap you in Starbucks (or something)."[/SIZE][/SIZE] (Interestingly my views have somewhat evolved since that debate, but it was almost a decade ago.)
What started that was a digression, of a kind, on Kantian ethics. I'm not actually very philosophically astute. I find something on Kantian ethics in the following.
Do you know more? What do you feel about Kantian ethics? On Kant and argumentation?
He might, but that would only be because (being human) he did not always practice what he preached. It is a fact of human nature that we can all talk sweet reasonableness but then get into a fight when someone shoves into a queue ahead of us.
That does not mean that the doctrine of sweet reasonableness is invalid, only that we have some mental education to do. Which is one of the rare areas when this atheist and the Christian might agree.
As a p.s I would of course observe that the bitchslap is defined in customary usage as denoting contempt for someone who is not even worth the good ol' healthy and honest American punch in the mouth. It is in no way to be confused with smiting someone who is having the vapours to make them snap out of it. That, in Kantian philosophy, would be his Duty.
Since we are talking Kant and I mentioned Duty, I was reminded of a remark in the dialogue of a TV costume drama about Elizabeth the first.
(Mounsier to Elizabeth) 'To love God is a duty - to love you is a pleasure.'
(Elizabeth) 'Should not your duty also be your pleasure?'
What indeed is the difference between loving God as a duty and loving a ... well --- someone who lights your fire.
One might well feel that loving God was something you had to do but getting the hots for a possible tumble-partner was something that required no effort.
But then that is something to feel almost guilty about. Loving God because you HAVE to? That is next to hating the bastard but have to protest that you love Him out of fear. no that can't be it. You really have to love Him because you really want to.
But then, there is a problem. If you do it because you want to, how is that any credit to you? There's this idea of sacrifice. Yes, of course it is a pleasure to have a lamb slaughtered and burned on an altar because it is what get up God's nose (or whatever he's got) in the best possible way, but the fact is that it is a sacrifice because if it wasn't done to please God, you wouldn't bother or want do it.
In the same way, your loving God must require some element of giving something up which you wouldn't otherwise bother to do if it were not done to please him, not you.
In that respect it is not hard to come to the conclusion that going to church, sitting through sermons, reading the bible and handing out tracts in the street is done because it is a bloody nuisance to you, let alone everyone else, and indeed it had been observed by some theologians that, if you actually started enjoying it, it would not only become no sacrifice but actually sinful self - indulgence.
Hmm... I imagine if everyone bitchslaped eachother for ordering a large coffee, people would stop buying large coffees.Starbucks profits would be probably be adversely effected.Which would be undesirable for Starbucks at least, so he would not bitchslap someone for ordering a large coffee.Though if no-one buys large coffee Starbucks will be forced to adapt, and create new coffees or other intisments to shop at Starbucks ( I suck at spelling, sorry) The betterment of Starbucks in other areas would be desirable , so Kant would bitchslap someone for ordering a large coffee.To summarize Kant would both would and would not bitchslap someone for ordering a large at Starbucks, because if it was university willed that everyone bitchslap someone for ordering a large at Starbucks, it would be both desirable and undesirable.
Hmm... I imagine if everyone bitchslaped eachother for ordering a large coffee, people would stop buying large coffees.Starbucks profits would be probably be adversely effected.Which would be undesirable for Starbucks at least, so he would not bitchslap someone for ordering a large coffee.Though if no-one buys large coffee Starbucks will be forced to adapt, and create new coffees or other intisments to shop at Starbucks ( I suck at spelling, sorry) The betterment of Starbucks in other areas would be desirable , so Kant would bitchslap someone for ordering a large coffee.To summarize Kant would both would and would not bitchslap someone for ordering a large, because if it was university willed that everyone bitchslap someone for ordering a large at Starbucks, it would be both desirable and undesirable.
Given that he is partly responsible for the secular humanist plague that is destroying society today, I might give him a whack if I had the opportunity.
Given that he is partly responsible for the secular humanist plague that is destroying society today, I might give him a whack if I had the opportunity.
Given that he is partly responsible for the secular humanist plague that is destroying society today, I might give him a whack if I had the opportunity.
Actually, true morality, based on reason instead of cult dogma has greatly improved society and the human condition since the beginning of the enlightenment.
Actually, true morality, based on reason instead of cult dogma has greatly improved society and the human condition since the beginning of the enlightenment.
sure.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
sure.
