Timeline for On Kant's Universalisability
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 15, 2014 at 10:47 | comment | added | virmaior | 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). | |
| Oct 15, 2014 at 10:46 | comment | added | virmaior | 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. | |
| Oct 15, 2014 at 10:37 | comment | added | lagrange103 | 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 :) | |
| Oct 15, 2014 at 10:33 | comment | added | lagrange103 | Thanks for the good answer, especially the further reading :) | |
| Oct 15, 2014 at 10:32 | vote | accept | lagrange103 | ||
| Oct 15, 2014 at 10:11 | history | answered | virmaior | CC BY-SA 3.0 |