Skip to main content
Philosophy

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

4
  • Thanks for the good answer, especially the further reading :)
    – lagrange103
    Commented Oct 15, 2014 at 10:33
  • Thanks for the clarification. Are there any purely logically based ethical frameworks that you know of? And I liked how you dealt with my three examples, is it just that they are bad examples or is there a similar way of reasoning other potential problems? Thank you :)
    – lagrange103
    Commented Oct 15, 2014 at 10:37
  • I don't think there are any purely logical ethical frameworks. Kant probably comes the closest. But in a certain respect, you could say the logic of consequentialist frameworks is easy. Everything is a number there whereas Kant's worth / price distinction makes it harder to jive with. And Mozibur definitely is not wrong when he says Kant's theory starts with reason -- not logic.
    – virmaior
    Commented Oct 15, 2014 at 10:46
  • The drug and smoking examples are not especially bad. But there's also a lot of articles on whether Kant can approve of them. Or at least they get mentioned in passing in the literature. The dicey part is that there's a lot of Kantian ethics that doesn't really seem like Kant on these sort of things (Korsgaard's Creating the Kingdom of Ends and Barbara Herman's work as well).
    – virmaior
    Commented Oct 15, 2014 at 10:47