A few days ago, I learned about a philosopher named Kant. Kant is a shit. For someone whose career it is to think, he is profoundly dumb. Let me explain. His principles regarding morality can be summarized as follows:
1) If people think long enough and thoroughly enough about a decision, every person will inevitably come to the same conclusion, that being the “right” answer, both morally and logically.
No dice, you filthy Kant! Are you saying that people are inherently flawed by having “free will” (debatable, but not the point of this rant) and that every choice has one absolutely correct option and at least one absolutely wrong one? Well, that sounds like polarized malarky, if you ask me.
2) Actions must be evaluated solely on the “goodness” of the action. Possible consequences and emotional implications are irrelevant and must have no impact on the decision. In other words, “Don’t _____ because _____ is wrong because it’s bad because it’s not good.”
Are you telling me, you fungus-infested Kant, that humans possess the ability to perceive consequences and emotions so that we can ignore it? If that were the case, only the mentally disabled, lacking higher cognitive functions, are capable of making “right” decisions since only they can act without considering the consequences or the emotions of others impacted by the act. Reason #1 why I believe Kant is likely secretly handicapped. The lecturer made a point to mention that Kant practiced what he preached, living a moral life free from the burdens of emotions or social interactions (check and check for Asperger’s), making his philosophy a veritable bathtub full of lube for Kant’s chronic intellectual masturbation (granted, it was the closest thing to actual masturbation that Kant would allow himself).
The lecturer then proceeded to describe an application of diseased Kantian morality through the following example:
You’re out on a walk when a woman you’ve never met runs up to you and says “I’m being attacked and chased. I’m going to run left. If the man chasing me asks you which way I went, tell him I went right.” What do you do?
While many would lie to preserve life (and perhaps win the affections of a grateful lady), the drooling Kant contends that “since lying is wrong, there isn’t a context where it’s right, so you shouldn’t lie because its bad to lie”. Allow me to deconstruct this grand old Judeochristian morality-fueled nonsense.
First of all, in a raggedy Kantian ideal, this situation should not exist. The man shouldn’t be attacking the woman, the woman shouldn’t have made herself so easily attackable, she shouldn’t have involved another person, much less a stranger (you) and especially shouldn’t have asked that stranger to compromise his honesty to a rapist/murderer/assaultster. Unfortunately, since this scenario is realistic, and stupid Kant’s principles are inherently contradicted by the system, the elements of said system remain unscathed by the palpable idiocy in tight Kant’s doctrine.
So which is more likely: That flappy Kant is right and our reality happens to be completely flawed, or that Kant is an idiot detached from the actual world?
Soaking Kant’s most prominent fallacy is that, like theoretical physics, his ideas only apply in a vacuum. In other words, Kant would be the smartest man in a room containing only Kant.