- 18 Oct 2013 23:13
#14316442
When I was growing up I had little interest in politics as I got the impression it was a game played by deceitful, insincere spin doctors. I was exposed to philosophy from a young age as my elder siblings studied it at university. I really enjoyed the philosophical aspects of the Matrix and I looked forward to studying Philosophy A-Levels.
One of my fondest memories of the A-level course was the trip we took to a seminar in which we discussed morality by way of thought experiments. It was the only day dedicated to discussing philosophy as an ends in itself rather than as a medium to practice exam technique.
Scenario:
A terrorist group has planted a bomb in an unknown public space and plan to detonate it imminently. You have captured a key member of the group but are unable to get him to spill the beans by any means that you apply to him. He was in the company of his 2 year old daughter when arrested and you know that you can break him if you torture her. How do you proceed?
23:23:23
23:23:22
23:23:21
The Kantian response- It is imperative that we never treat someone solely as a means to an end but always as an end in themselves. This law should be applied universally. Keep your hands off the kid !
Utilitarian response- The level of misery caused by an explosion in a public place far outweighs the harm caused by beating up one child. Rough her up !
Aristotle- One should always strive to lead a balanced life by avoiding excesses and deficiencies whilst striving for the mean. Do you want to be the type of person who would never beat an infant in any circumstances? Do you want to be a trigger happy sort; quick to raise a fist with little or no provocation required? Where are the spectrum do you wish to sit? Given the circumstances I believe we should harm the child in this situation.
I have listed the arguments in that order because that is how I structure my moral framework. As a rule of thumb I will never use someone solely as a means to an end but the utilitarian declaration that the end justifies the means can override this on occasion. It can also override a ‘voluntary’ exchange if the level of inequality makes it exploitative. Ultimately I consider what sort of person I should be in the grand scheme of things and try to seek a balance between the two positions.
This explains why I was drawn to libertarianism since the NAP mimics Kantian principles. The more I explore this ideology and apply it to the real world the more situations I identify in which I feel it is desirable and justifiable to coerce people in pursuit of the greater good. I don’t want to be a totalitarian slavishly following the NAP in all circumstances but I don’t want to use utilitarian logic without restraint whenever it conveniences me. So I must strive for the mean, located somewhere between the vice of excess and the vice of deficiency.
Any thoughts?
Is a priori logic bogus?
Should I engage in historical class analysis instead?
One of my fondest memories of the A-level course was the trip we took to a seminar in which we discussed morality by way of thought experiments. It was the only day dedicated to discussing philosophy as an ends in itself rather than as a medium to practice exam technique.
Scenario:
A terrorist group has planted a bomb in an unknown public space and plan to detonate it imminently. You have captured a key member of the group but are unable to get him to spill the beans by any means that you apply to him. He was in the company of his 2 year old daughter when arrested and you know that you can break him if you torture her. How do you proceed?
23:23:23
23:23:22
23:23:21
The Kantian response- It is imperative that we never treat someone solely as a means to an end but always as an end in themselves. This law should be applied universally. Keep your hands off the kid !
Utilitarian response- The level of misery caused by an explosion in a public place far outweighs the harm caused by beating up one child. Rough her up !
Aristotle- One should always strive to lead a balanced life by avoiding excesses and deficiencies whilst striving for the mean. Do you want to be the type of person who would never beat an infant in any circumstances? Do you want to be a trigger happy sort; quick to raise a fist with little or no provocation required? Where are the spectrum do you wish to sit? Given the circumstances I believe we should harm the child in this situation.
I have listed the arguments in that order because that is how I structure my moral framework. As a rule of thumb I will never use someone solely as a means to an end but the utilitarian declaration that the end justifies the means can override this on occasion. It can also override a ‘voluntary’ exchange if the level of inequality makes it exploitative. Ultimately I consider what sort of person I should be in the grand scheme of things and try to seek a balance between the two positions.
This explains why I was drawn to libertarianism since the NAP mimics Kantian principles. The more I explore this ideology and apply it to the real world the more situations I identify in which I feel it is desirable and justifiable to coerce people in pursuit of the greater good. I don’t want to be a totalitarian slavishly following the NAP in all circumstances but I don’t want to use utilitarian logic without restraint whenever it conveniences me. So I must strive for the mean, located somewhere between the vice of excess and the vice of deficiency.
Any thoughts?
Is a priori logic bogus?
Should I engage in historical class analysis instead?
Pro life in the womb
Pro gun in the classroom
Pro gun in the classroom
- By Tainari88
- By wat0n
- By litwin