Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
Top-level
Helles Sachsen

@balkongast

Wait, you can clearly made rational thinkings about this situation and deciding right. Especially if the gestapo ask you? It would be more difficult if a democratic police ask you and its reasonable, or if its about a friend or family member, but there are logical paths through this situations, which are better than which the usual human will do in this situation, just acting by emotion.

@ForeverExpat @Gargron

24 comments
Helles Sachsen replied to Helles

@balkongast

I think the most humans in a authorian regime would do the wrong decision, and the most ai would do the right decision because they dont have the fear of existence because of all the copies.

@ForeverExpat @Gargron

balkongast replied to Helles

@helles_sachsen @ForeverExpat @Gargron

What is wrong in that case?
Saving the own ass, following the ' do not lie ' as required by the categorical imperative?
Or acting ethical, lie and risk your own life?

Helles Sachsen replied to balkongast

@balkongast

I dont follow your premise that "dont lie" is a unavoidable conclusion from the imperative.

@ForeverExpat @Gargron

balkongast replied to Helles

@helles_sachsen @ForeverExpat @Gargron

Then you certainly have a good idea how to explain an exception from a general rule.
Edit: the problem in it is that the rule is not general after the exception.

Helles Sachsen replied to balkongast

@balkongast

Really, these are just your own conclusions, find peer reviewed articles that give your own conclusions a little bit foundation.

@ForeverExpat @Gargron

balkongast replied to Helles

@helles_sachsen @ForeverExpat @Gargron

You are the one to tell me, what lets a general rule still be general if there are exceptions and how to identify exceptions as valid and necessary.
You have stated that an automatic Kant is always right.
So it is up to you.

balkongast replied to Helles

@helles_sachsen @ForeverExpat @Gargron

Kant says simply don't lie.
Where is the exception and how would the exception be found to apply?

balkongast replied to Helles

@helles_sachsen @ForeverExpat @Gargron

Act always in the way that can be taken as the base for a general basement of law (translation by me).
So this says do not lie. There is no exception to that.
And if there should be an exception, how can it be general?

Helles Sachsen replied to balkongast

@balkongast

Your conclusion that this say "dont lie" is just your opinion. Kant didnt wrote it anywhere. Do you have any source, peer reviewed, with the same view?

@ForeverExpat @Gargron

balkongast replied to Helles

@helles_sachsen @ForeverExpat @Gargron

Tell me what general rule stays general when there are exceptions and how can the exceptions be identified as valid and necessary?

Helles Sachsen replied to balkongast

@balkongast

That you still say lying is a exception to this rule, and want me debate from this starting point, is a little bit like putting words in my mouth. As i said, your premise that lying is not allowed from this ruled is totally wrong imho.

@ForeverExpat @Gargron

balkongast replied to Helles

@helles_sachsen @ForeverExpat @Gargron

So the conclusion is that Kant accepts lies in the categorical imperative?

Helles Sachsen replied to balkongast

@balkongast

For sure imho! WTF For example to safe a life from the police of a fascist regime? @ForeverExpat @Gargron

balkongast replied to Helles

@helles_sachsen @ForeverExpat @Gargron

But you risk your own life and you accept lies in general.

I believe we are both not deep enough in philosophy, but I am sure that Kant does not accept lies if we look at the categorical imperative.

Helles Sachsen replied to balkongast

@balkongast

Are you christian? What is your problem with lies?

@ForeverExpat @Gargron

Helles Sachsen replied to Helles

@balkongast

Explain me with kant, why every lie is unethical. I am curious.

@ForeverExpat @Gargron

balkongast replied to Helles

@helles_sachsen @ForeverExpat @Gargron

Kant does not accept lies if we consider the categorical imperative.
Religion is not part of the categorical imperative.

The debate about right and not right, what is justice and not justice is part of the debate in philosophy, where we both surely don't have enough knowledge to go into depth.

Helles Sachsen replied to balkongast

@balkongast @ForeverExpat @Gargron "Kant does not accept lies if we consider the categorical imperative"

This is only your opinion. You gave no further source.

balkongast replied to Helles

@helles_sachsen @ForeverExpat @Gargron

Again, YOU have stated the automated Kant being always right. It is up to YOU to prove that being correct.
I just pointed to a paradoxity.

Helles Sachsen replied to balkongast

@balkongast @ForeverExpat @Gargron Never stated "always right". But. Kant give clear logical rules to a ethic where also lying is allowed and a machine can understand this.

Helles Sachsen replied to Helles

@balkongast @ForeverExpat @Gargron There is no paradoxity. You can lie with Kant if you also want that another person lie to you to safe a third persons life?

Helles Sachsen replied to Helles

@balkongast @ForeverExpat @Gargron This is clearly inside Kant. I would love that people lie to me if this safe the life of a person. Every ai would understand the logic behind this?

balkongast replied to Helles

@helles_sachsen @ForeverExpat @Gargron

We are at a dead end in reading the categorical imperative.

Go Up