= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
thomblake comments on Quantifying ethicality of human actions - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (58)
That's not entirely fair. Kant said that morality was not determined by consequences; but that statement may be incoherent. Attempts to use the categorical imperative result in looking at consequences in one way or another - even if the user is unaware they are doing so, because they are referencing values evolved into them by their consequences to the user's ancestors (and selected-against non-ancestors).
Again agreeing with Jack; it's true that much of Kant's argument about the CI is based on consequences. Conceptually, however, the CI and its association with objective morality do require it to be purely non-consequence-based. If it were consequence based, then if the consequences were different, it wouldn't necessarily hold, so it would not be "categorical."
I agree that, fundamentally, any intelligible concept of ethics will rest on consequences. But the idea behind the CI is that it is a priori, which is why it's such a terrible and convoluted idea.