Immanuel Kant “The Categorial Imperative”

The Golden Rule says that you should do unto others as you would have them do unto you. What is the difference between the Golden Rule and the categorical imperative? Explain.

Immanuel Kant states if an action is commanded as being good without qualification the imperative is categorial. These categorial imperatives are unchanging. Kant also says that you should act on a rule only if it can become a universal law. So what Kant is trying to express is that if you are hungry then you should eat because this is a law that can be adopted universally among all people. Kant also says “man and generally any rational being exists as an end in himself, not merely as a means to be arbitrarily used by this or that will, but in all his actions, whether they concern himself or other rational beings, must always regarded at the same time as  an end.” He says because man is rational they are of worth but anything that is non-rational are just things and are there to show effort of our actions. Humans themselves are ends in themselves because we are rational and should never be used as a means.

The idea of categorial imperatives is quite alluring as an idea. The fact that a person would base his or her decision on the fact that if another person were in the same situation as themselves they would make the same decision is great. The golden rule says do unto others as you would have them do unto you, but kant would say do only what others would do in the same situation as you and only if it can become universal law among others. So basically as the golden rule would say if someone stabs you in the back then feel free to stab them back. The golden rule is based on feelings and interpretation and can be misinterpreted quite easily. Whereas the categorial imperative has the direct approach of do only if it can become universal law despite feelings. This way of thinking I believe is a steadfast and very logical way to live ones life. But at the same time I don’t think it is possible because emotion that is in every person which in my thinking makes it almost impossible to follow the categorial imperative’s way of making decisions.

Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill

o What is Mill’s principle of utility? What does he mean by “utility?”

o How does Mill explain the fact that some people choose lower pleasures over higher pleasures? Do you agree with his assessment?

John Stuart Mill portrays the idea that there are lower and higher pleasures in life. He also thinks that desiring something and thinking something is pleasant are the exact same thing. There is a difference between the sum of pleasures and seeking higher pleasures. In the excerpt from “Utilitarianism” Mills states “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.” He goes on to explain that if the pig or fool disagree then its only because they only know their own side. Mill’s is trying to convey the point that if you have higher learning and aspirations and you keep those going then you will know more about the higher levels of pleasure, and you will continually pursue those pleasures because of your understanding of the world around you. Mills also says that people who only shoot for the low pleasures in life are only there because they don’t have the understanding of higher pleasures. So they started life pursuing higher pleasures but then lost sight of it for the need of sustenance and then once they stopped using their mind they slowly lose their way and then lower pleasures are the only thing that they are able to enjoy any longer.

Utilitarianism is a theory in normative ethics holding that the best moral action is the one that maximizes utility. And what I have gathered is that Mills definition of utility is that higher pleasures are based off of your virtue, and how you positively impact society on a large scale and individuals on a small scale.

I think Mills has some solid points in that it is better to be more intelligent than say a monkey, because then you have the intelligence and mental capacity to enjoy things that the monkey is just unable to. But at the same time I think life and pleasures can be enjoyed just as much from a simple viewpoint over that of an educated scholar who has dedicated his whole life to learning.

The Ethics of Belief

Do you see any fallacies in Clifford’s reasoning? Reconstruct one of his arguments in standard form. Then evaluate that argument for soundness and validity. What practical significance does Clifford’s thesis have?

I believe Clifford is using a slippery slope/false cause fallacy argument to try and get his point across.

1. It is always wrong to believe something without having complete knowledge on that subject.
2. Learn everything you can so you have power of knowledge and a sound belief.
3. But if you don’t then you are wronging and hurting society.
4. You are sinning against society and putting society back on the track to return to savagery.

I think Clifford’s argument has valid premises. It is good to seek as much knowledge as you can to make informed decisions. I do think he is right in the sense that when you have a great responsibility to not know all knowledge on a subject could greatly effect society. Like having a doctor that doesn’t know everything about heart surgery but then does a heart surgery and the person dies due to mistakes made during the surgery. I do think in this case the premises are valid because if the doctor had learned what he was supposed to then the person undergoing surgery might have survived.

But what I think makes Clifford’s conclusion unsound is that there are things that every human believes that they don’t have complete knowledge on that doesn’t hurt or demean society. A simple example of this in my opinion is I believe when I turn the  key in my car it will turn on. I do not know all the reasons why or what goes into the car turning on just that it will when I do. According to Clifford I should not be turning the car on to operate it because I do not have all the knowledge on how it works so I am sinning against society. While knowledge is extremely good for the betterment of society and the safekeeping of those around us, it is not necessary that we have complete knowledge on all things in order for society to sustain its sanity and continue to operate as Clifford would infer.

Fallacies

1 Begging the Question

Women are allowed to be in the military. But women aren’t allowed to serve in the infantry because it is and always will be a mans job.

2 Ad Hominem

How can you be against cutting school funding? Your kids kids just finished school due to that funding! Only a cold hearted scrooge like you would be for cutting the funding!

3 Equivocation

The sign said “fine for parking here”. So I parked here.

4 Slippery Slope

If you get married young, then it won’t be long before you start having children, which will prevent you from finishing school and getting a good job, then you and your wife will hate each other because you are poor and can’t go on vacations and then you will finally get a divorce poor miserable and with child support payments. So you should not get married at a young age.

5 Straw Man

Right wing activists want to ban gay marriage in america and not issue marriage licenses to gay couples. but these extreme stances are definitely uncalled for so the right wing activists are wrong and gay couples should be left in peace and allowed to do as they please.

6 Tu Quoque

You say I should believe in God and become a christian yet you live exactly the same way I do and do nothing that sets myself apart from you. Therefore your reasoning is invalid and not worth listening to.

7 Non-sequitur

Eating taco bell will make you fat, But eating anything can make you fat. Every time you eat a piece of candy you can get fat. So you should be able to eat taco bell.

8 False Dichotomy

There are only two types of successful people in the world: people who go to college and idiots.

9 Argument from Ignorance

People have been trying to prove that rock music is the best type music around but no one has been able to prove it, therefore rock music is not the best type of music.

10 Red Herring

You may think he stole that pear, but look at how skinny he is! how would you feel if you made him pay for it?

11 Appeal to Authority

Ellen Degeneres said boxer briefs are better than normal underwear, so we should burn all of our normal underwear and go buy boxer briefs immediately.

12 Hasty Generalization

The Coors light I had tasted bad. So all beer tastes bad.