Timeline for What would Kant do when two categorical imperatives conflict? Could he ever justify lying?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Nov 14, 2016 at 15:43 | history | suggested | mic | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
corrected spelling
|
| Nov 14, 2016 at 2:12 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Nov 14, 2016 at 15:43 | |||||
| Jun 13, 2011 at 13:31 | history | edited | Chad | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 383 characters in body
|
| Jun 13, 2011 at 13:23 | history | edited | Chad | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 284 characters in body
|
| Jun 11, 2011 at 2:38 | comment | added | Cerberus | Cody and Mfg agree with you; I suppose I needed a bit more elaboration. I already gave you an up-vote—I don't know who voted you down. | |
| Jun 10, 2011 at 14:02 | comment | added | Chad | I agree and IF as in this example the Officer were to burn the house the moral imparitive would be to attempt to save those you chose to provide protection. | |
| Jun 10, 2011 at 13:49 | comment | added | Cody Gray | With regards to your clarification, it's worth considering that choosing not to act is itself a choice. That is to say, you can't avoid a moral dilemma merely by refusing to do anything at all. Refraining from taking an action is still taking an action, it's simply a different action altogether. But there are still all sorts of potential moral dilemmas attached, like tacit consent, complicity, civil obedience, etc. If only moral dilemmas could be as simple as "neither one!" | |
| Jun 10, 2011 at 13:37 | history | edited | Chad | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 132 characters in body
|
| Jun 10, 2011 at 13:31 | comment | added | Chad | I did not say there were no consequenses. You do not KNOW what the officer would do. Which is more important to you your saftey or your moral compass. If you believe that you should NEVER Lie then your option is to be true to your self or not. In addition the jew may have a chance to escape before being consumed by the fire. You do not KNOW that not answering will result in their death. | |
| Jun 10, 2011 at 13:20 | comment | added | Cerberus | @Chad: Well, in the situation I have provided, he would have my house burned down if I remained silent. Let's not get into an historical discussion: my question is about what if... if you do not like this particular example, you can take another situation in which anything but a lie would mean disaster. | |
| Jun 10, 2011 at 13:16 | comment | added | Chad | You do not know that. The SS Officer could choose to come in and do a search. Finding nothing leave with out causing any damage. Non-Compliance is not the same as disobedience. I did not say to answer that "I wont say" i said not to answer. Remain silent. | |
| Jun 10, 2011 at 13:13 | history | edited | Chad | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 12 characters in body
|
| Jun 10, 2011 at 13:11 | comment | added | Cerberus | You're probably saying what Kant said... but, in this case, disobedience would lead to my house being burned down, the Jews dying an even more horrible death. In general, saying "I won't say" usually makes it clear what your answer would be: "are you gay?" — "I'd rather not say" (you're gay); "do you like my dress?" — "I'd rather not say"/pause (you hate it), etc. | |
| Jun 10, 2011 at 12:58 | history | answered | Chad | CC BY-SA 3.0 |