Philosopher of the Week

[LMNO]

Well, I dunno.  Due to the introduction of the Black Swan concept, how can anyone be held accountable for a consequece that is related to, but not directly caused by a person's actions?

It would seem that the "rightness or wrongness" should naturally take into accound foreseeable consequences, but allow for unseen ones.

Conversely, if an outcome is a Black Swan, how can the decision maker claim to have behaved ethically?

[Jasper]

Well, I dunno.  Due to the introduction of the Black Swan concept, how can anyone be held accountable for a consequece that is related to, but not directly caused by a person's actions?

It would seem that the "rightness or wrongness" should naturally take into accound foreseeable consequences, but allow for unseen ones.

Conversely, if an outcome is a Black Swan, how can the decision maker claim to have behaved ethically?

The short answer is, who would ever know?

After taking my last philosophy/ethics course, I can't help thinking ethics would make more sense if framed into a popularity contest model, because as cynical and ungenerous as it sounds, that's how ethics behaves in real life.  High ideals are fine for academics, but life requires stupid amounts of cognitive and ethical flexibility. 

A black swan ethical dilemma is, from a traditional standpoint, a no-win situation.  No matter what ethical system you're using, something will not fit.

You can't really be held solely responsible for consequences that you only indirectly caused.  Nobody can shoulder the blame for everything that goes wrong, or you end up sacrificing scapegoats to clear the air.

[Cain]

Didn't Kant decide is unethical because there was no reason to do it?

Kant was a pointless little dork who never deserved the amount of attention he got.

Um yeah.

You're an idiot.

Cool, we goanna debate Deontology now?

Nope.  I'm just going to point and laugh at someone who thinks they can talk about modern philosophy without constant reference to Kant, irregardless of if his ideas had merit or not.

Cluephone ringing: ideas like the EU and the US invasion of Iraq can be traced back to Kantian thinking.  But clearly they do not deserve attention, right? 

[LMNO]

So Felix, you're saying you're against the concept of ethics in general, then?

Cain, I would readily read and appreciate any thoughts you had on this subject.

[Jasper]

That's cool, Cain.  Kind of disappointing though.

So Felix, you're saying you're against the concept of ethics in general, then?

I'm against the concept of pure, universal ethics.  Nothing in real life makes that much sense.  If ethicists were to take into account reality tunnels, black swans, and make it correlate to real life situations, it would cohere.

[Cain]

My thoughts are: blow me.  Everyone here had their chance to take part and they did not keep care to put in half the effort I did.

Instead, I'm going to make fun of people who think Kant is irrelevant simply because they do not like him.

[Jasper]

My thoughts are: blow me.  Everyone here had their chance to take part and they did not keep care to put in half the effort I did.

Instead, I'm going to make fun of people who think Kant is irrelevant simply because they do not like him.

I'll grant you this:  He provided a viewpoint that allowed people to really argue like serious philosophers.  I still don't think his works are of value except in fairy tales.

Also, I don't see why you're extending the insult to the thread to me; I picked it up as soon as I noticed it.

[Cain]

I was answering LMNO, then making fun of you.

Because you seem to think that you can understand modern philosophy without reference to Kant.  I'm sure your glib dismissal will come in handy when you get to....Hume, John Stuart Mill, Nietzsche, Hegel, the entire Frankfurt School (esp. Adorno, Horkheimer and Habermas), Rawls and the post-structuralists.

And that somehow, Kant's philosophy, which was published during the upheaval of the French revolution and spanned everything from politics to metaphysics, has had no impact outside of his chosen field.

It is irrelevant whether he was right or not, just as it is irrelevant if Marx or Sayid Qutb or Adam Smith are right.  What is important is how big an impact those ideas have, and how they reflect on the times in which they gain influence.  And if you think Kant had anything but an incredible impact, then you are sorely mistaken.

[Jasper]

I was answering LMNO, then making fun of you.

Because you seem to think that you can understand modern philosophy without reference to Kant.  I'm sure your glib dismissal will come in handy when you get to....Hume, John Stuart Mill, Nietzsche, Hegel, the entire Frankfurt School (esp. Adorno, Horkheimer and Habermas), Rawls and the post-structuralists.

And that somehow, Kant's philosophy, which was published during the upheaval of the French revolution and spanned everything from politics to metaphysics, has had no impact outside of his chosen field.

It is irrelevant whether he was right or not, just as it is irrelevant if Marx or Sayid Qutb or Adam Smith are right.  What is important is how big an impact those ideas have, and how they reflect on the times in which they gain influence.  And if you think Kant had anything but an incredible impact, then you are sorely mistaken.

You seem to be arguing a point I never defended.

I acknowledged Kant as having a huge impact.  I dispute that his works are of use to serious practical ethics.  (Note: I'm not saying it's irrelevant, since most people don't see Kant as totally useless.  It's relevant by virtue of it's existence.)

For my purposes, the relevant argument IS whether he was right or wrong.  I'm not as interested in what other people think.  I just want to get to the bottom of ethics.

Again, I never said he is irrelevant.  When discussing other philosophers, since their points relate to his, Kant must be mentioned. 

What I am arguing is that his ethics are broken.  We clear on that?