Philosophical Vegan Forum

I remember about a month or so ago, we studied figures in the enlightenment era. One of the blokes we learned about was a dude named "Immanuel Kant". Curious, I researched this guy, and read up on him to have something to talk about during class. But he also believed in the philosophy of deontology (it says that it's not spelled right?), which I never heard of. So I searched the definition via Google, and Wikipedia said this:

Wikipedia wrote: is the normative ethical position that judges the morality of an action based on the action's adherence to a rule or rules.

At first, I didn't quite understand what it meant. I did a little extra digging, and found this definition on Philosophy basics:

Philosophy Basics wrote:Deontology (or Deontological Ethics) is an approach to Ethics that focuses on the rightness or wrongness of actions themselves, as opposed to the rightness or wrongness of the consequences of those actions (Consequentialism) or to the character and habits of the actor (Virtue Ethics).

What I have obtained from this is that, we should be considering the good/bad of the actions, rather than the good/bad of the outcomes, and should follow some set of arbitrary rules that I've never heard of.

I've seen some anarchists subtly push the idea of deontology. According to them, everyone should be equal, and no one should be ruled over (some say that we need anarcha-feminism which doesn't make much sense). I've seen an anarchist say "Anarchism is for everyone (oh my God..), and it promotes fairness." I wondered now for a while: Why? We will always have some form of hierarchy, but it's not bad. We don't live in an absolutist-monarchy, and we have a system of checks and balances. We democratically elect leaders (albeit democracy is a weak system), and capital tends to be earned (not 100% of the time, of course, and capitalism is also a bad system). Personally, I think instead of trying to dismantle these already bad systems, we should try fixing their negative aspects, at least until a newer, better, tested out system has been conceived.

What makes fairness and equality so great? Equality doesn't exactly mean equal rights, but personally, equal rights are all we need. Although there are a few amendment that are in dispute, the Bill of Rights is something that outlines basic rights that everyone should have (freedom of speech, press and religion, right to a fair trial, etc..). I think fairness and equality seem good on the surface, but I think we need to look deeper into it. I appreciate that these people are just trying to make everything better, but it's as they say, the road to hell is paved with goooooooood intentions.
https://youtu.be/v5ZYse6Vqtc?t=35

PC culture seems to have shot itself in the foot after this past election, if brimstone is right. They turned people away from being more accepting, because their methods of achieving social justice are terrible. I'm pretty sure some Hillary supporters voted for Trump out of spite of the PC culture.

If there's anything that I learned, no one is equal. IQ and beauty are irrelevant. It's all about self-discipline. How much you're willing to kick your self in the ass if you want to achieve amazing things. That's why I'm not a fan of some welfare programs. I don't think that people deserve to have money handed to them on a silver platter, and they don't go out and get a job. But I've never had a job either, and I don't pay taxes, so I guess I'm the same. But still, no one is giving me any money for my charity work!

Anyways, is fairness and equality always good? Why is deontology bad and self-contradictory?

Joshua Greene refutes Kant's deontology very elegantly in his book 'Moral Tribes'. Basically Kant says that an action is wrong if it cannot be 'universalized'. For example, killing is wrong becasue if everyone were to kill there'd be nobody left to kill. But as you said, it's arbitrary.

Joshua Greene wrote:For one thing, it doesn't follow, either logically or intuitively, that an action must be wrong if it can't be universalized in Kant's sense. Take, for example, being fashionable: If everyone is fashionable, then no one is fashionable. Universal fashionableness is self-undermining. Nevertheless, we don't think that being fashionable is immoral. Likewise, there are nasty behaviors, such as beating people up, that are not self-undermining: No reason why we can't beat on one another until the end of time. This would be bad, but it wouldn't be impossible, and Kant's argument requires impossibility.

miniboes wrote:Joshua Greene refutes Kant's deontology very elegantly in his book 'Moral Tribes'.

That's goin' on my Christmas list.

miniboes wrote:Basically Kant says that an action is wrong if it cannot be 'universalized'. For example, killing is wrong because if everyone were to kill there'd be nobody left to kill.

I'm a bit confused. So if everybody did crack, that's good according to Kant? That sounds kinda contradictory.

miniboes wrote: But as you said, it's arbitrary.

Do you know where Kant is basing this off of?

Joshua Greene wrote:For one thing, it doesn't follow, either logically or intuitively, that an action must be wrong if it can't be universalized in Kant's sense. Take, for example, being fashionable: If everyone is fashionable, then no one is fashionable. Universal fashionableness is self-undermining. Nevertheless, we don't think that being fashionable is immoral. Likewise, there are nasty behaviors, such as beating people up, that are not self-undermining: No reason why we can't beat on one another until the end of time. This would be bad, but it wouldn't be impossible, and Kant's argument requires impossibility.

I... I don't get it.

^please explain the logic behind deontology meaning crack is good. o_O

I don't agree with deontology, but I can see the logic behind only morally permitting actions that can be universalized.
For example, when you're vegan, it's not helpful to be obsessive about making sure that the glycerol in that drink is plant-derived, because it's not something most people would want to do. It makes veganism seem too difficult, and it puts people off.
When you're trying to be a 'vegan role model', therefore, it's best to do only go as far as most people would reasonable be willing to go. At least, when you're actually being the role model. If you secretly obsess over glycerol, I guess there's nothing wrong with that.

EquALLity wrote:^please explain the logic behind deontology meaning crack is good. o_O

*punches self in the face*
From what I can tell, miniboes is saying that Kant believes that if it's accepted by the norm, it must be good.

RedAppleGP wrote:

EquALLity wrote:^please explain the logic behind deontology meaning crack is good. o_O

*punches self in the face*
From what I can tell, miniboes is saying that Kant believes that if it's accepted by the norm, it must be good.

That's not what it says... Like at all.

EquALLity wrote: That's not what it says... Like at all.

Mind explaining what it does say then?

RedAppleGP wrote:

EquALLity wrote: That's not what it says... Like at all.

Mind explaining what it does say then?

An action is only moral if everyone in the world can do it without harming the world, basically.
So killing is wrong because if everyone killed then we would all be dead.

EquALLity wrote: An action is only moral if everyone in the world can do it without harming the world, basically.
So killing is wrong because if everyone killed then we would all be dead.

But that doesn't make any sense

RedAppleGP wrote:

EquALLity wrote: An action is only moral if everyone in the world can do it without harming the world, basically.
So killing is wrong because if everyone killed then we would all be dead.

But that doesn't make any sense

I never said deontology makes sense... albeit I thought the core of deontology was the idea that certain things are always wrong regardless of consequence. But this principle is based on the consequences of certain actions that can't be universally applied... idk.