Talk:Categorical imperative

message: I rewrote this article completely and replaced the existing version. The old version and its talk are archived at Categorical imperative/temp. --malathion talk 07:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a problem with writing style. When I wrote the original article, I was saying "according to Kant" almost every third sentence and it was getting tedious. Therefore, I wrote at the top of the article that "[The argument] is outlined here according to the arguments therein." and removed a bunch of the qualifiers. If you can think of a better way to clarify this, I would appreciate it. --malathion talk 04:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

text: The source for the abortion argument is the Korsgaard book listed at the bottom. --malathion talk 04:42, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

text: By the way, I'm not exactly saying that this was Kant's position. I'll add something clarifying what exactly I am doing in the interpretation section. --malathion talk 04:47, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I'm considering making the following changes to this article, and would like to hear your thoughts:
First, the Formula of Humanity as an End is erroneously described here as the second formulation, when it is in fact the third. This certainly ought to be corrected.
On that note, it only seems appropriate to add the second, fourth, and fifth formulations. I possess the James W. Ellington translation, which I notice is already cited in this article, and so will happily do this.
I also notice that the section about the golden rule is completely uncited, and I'm also uncertain about its relevance to the article. Though it would be great to include some responses to the CI in this article, like Philippa Foot's, I'm not sure about that one. If someone doesn't come up with citations, I may remove it.
Finally, I don't think the section on Eichmann is relevant enough to include, and I'm also inclined to remove it.
Opinions?
I would say personally that the categorical imperative inherently is multiple universes and dimensions. When you think of people you think of emotions which are impossible to measure like a drug such as nostalgia which is based on the past and not the future.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.210.82.57 (talk) 01:59, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: The Second, fourth, and fifth formulations and some other issues

message: Comment:  I think Kant's argument for the imperfect duties is less consequentialist than the summary suggests.  As I read him, his point is that although being a rational agent doesn't commit one to any particular goals, one can't be a rational agent without having some goals or other.  Since having a goal rationally commits one to aiming at the means to one's goal, being a rational agent rationally commits one to aiming at all-purpose means, i.e. means that are generally useful regardless of what particular goals one may have.  (This isn't a consequentialist argument because it makes no appeal to to the value of the goals; it's a purely conceptual point.)  Hence any rational agent is committed a) to desiring to be generally helpful/useful to herself, and b) to want other people to be generally helpful/useful to her; universalised, these yield duties of self-improvement and of charity. --BerserkRL
:Yeah, I don't think I meant to imply that imperfect duty is in any way consequentialist -- the point is, as you explained, that if you are going to set a goal for yourself, you have to set that goal for all rational beings as well. I agree completely with everything you've said here, so please feel free to edit the article and we'll see what we can come up with. --causa sui talk 17:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imperfect Duties 

message: Some anon just gave the article a big rewrite. I'm not sure if the new version is better. Seems like some material is worth incorporating though. --causa sui talk 14:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that the first chapter of the Groundwork is titled "Transition from the common rational knowledge of morality to the philosophical" (trans. T. K. Abbott). This is a pretty strong suggestion that he's trying to formulate a philosophical rule from common sense. -- vwoodstock (talk) 14:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uhh 

message: I think this article would benefit from a section relating the different forms Kant related that the CI test can formally take: the contradiction in coneption test (CC) and the contradiction in the will test (CW). I think these tests relate directly to the FUL (hence the emphasis on contradiction, which is directly opposed to unviersalizability), but am not that familiar with their chracterizations, so am refraining from writing the section myself until I can do some further research. Shaggorama 09:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is just different terminology for the distinction between perfect and imperfect duty. If a maxim results in a contradiction in conceivability (because we cannot even conceive of it as instituted as a universal law of nature), it is inconsistent with "strict" or perfect duty. If it results in a contradiction of the will (because we cannot will it to be a universal law of nature), then it is inconsistent with "meritorious" or imperfect duty. You make a good point that it would be a good idea to include these terms in the section discussing perfect and imperfect duty. --causa sui talk 10:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request: CC and CW tests 

message: Here are my reasons. The reader will actually recognize that Delaney has reintroduced the section about abortion and animal rights although several user's have hinted at the fact that his opinion is speculative and there is no textual support for his opinion. Nevertheless Delaney = Malathion reintroduced this section without giving textual support. It seems appropriate to delete this.  
I rewrote this article completely and replaced the existing version. The old version and its talk are archived at Categorical imperative/temp. --malathion talk 07:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you've really put me in a "Damned if I do, damned if I don't" situation since people here (Ultramarine, WhiteC) have insisted on discussing interpretation in this article. If you think this section is not as good as it could be, I encourage you to improve it, rather than delete it. --causa sui talk 18:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Korsgaard didn't write much about it. Incidentally, I wanted the interpretation section left out, but as I said, Ultramarine and WhiteC were quite adamant that it should be left in. I'm left to repeating myself: If you think it should be improved, then let's get to work on improving it. Let's look for sources. But please check all accusations about my good faith at the door. --causa sui talk 23:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It's a difficult point, since practically every Kantian I've talked to has been pro-choice and cited Kant's moral philosophy as justificiation. I do this as well. I find it difficult to imagine how a Kantian could have any other view. But to say that Kantianism leads to a pro-abortion stance smacks of original research, which is why I wish I had a citation for this. --causa sui talk 13:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not spectulating about Kant's stand on abortion, because Kant himself had no stance on it. However, Kant is not the be-all-end-all of deontology and interpretation of this idea has gone on without him. I repeat that other editors have demanded that the interpretation sections be included in the article and I wish you would stop busting my balls over the fallout and problems that have arisen as a result of the section that I didn't even want to be in this article at all. Improve the article yourself or stop complaining to me about it. --causa sui talk 18:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

text: We're all responsible to improve the encyclopedia. Forgive me if I think complaining without suggesting a solution isn't productive. --causa sui talk 21:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abortion section deleted

message: This text "Several philosophers have criticized these normative interpretations as incompatible with a realistic moral philosophy." was removed, because the 'several philosophers' have not been identified, and this is not NPOV.  I also feel that the intro to the previous section shows Kant's attitude to normative criticisms quite well.  WhiteC 14:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "several philosophers" are the philosophers identified in the section itself. Please improve, not remove. --causa sui talk 14:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah.  Well Christine Korsgaard is criticizing the normative interpretations as being wrong, but the previous two are using normative interpretations to criticize the CI.  I suppose I would say that Korsgaard is reponsding to the criticism.  I'll think about it and try to come up with a better intro.  WhiteC 20:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed intro to Normative Criticism section

message: At present, the "Eudaimonia assumed" section seems unclear. I also think it's irrelevant. Some anonymous editor dropped it in on 2 Jan 2005 and it's been unimproved since. Is there some reason it's been kept? I can think of one, but I'd rather believe it's an oversight. —vivacissamamente 21:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The argument is very bad in my opinion, but that's only my opinion. The real issue is whether the article is made better by its inclusion. Since Ayn Rand's influence in philosophy is practically zero, I'm leaning toward no. --causa sui talk 01:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's, at the least, written badly. I think the first part is roughly arguing against Kant's conclusion in the suicide example that if everyone agrees suicide is their duty, then it's basically okay after all, counter to his argument. The second part seems to similarly be claiming that if everyone agrees, it's universalizable enough, I think. Can anyone concur? Is anonymous Randite still with us? —vivacissamamente 02:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm no Randite (if fact i feel her world view is deeply flawed, not to mention dangerous), but this charge of assumed eudaimonia seems to a layman like me to be a valid criticism of Kant. surely it has been raised by other philosophers, right? 63.166.224.67 16:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rand argument

message: This section contains what seems (to a layman like me) an unfair dismissal of Beck's argument: "Of course [Back's] imperative is actually hypothetical, but the condition is merely omitted. One could say that you should always inscribe your name inside a new book, if you want it to be returned." One *could* say that, but that's not what Beck said. People *could* tack their own hypotheticals on to any proposed categorical. this feeds into the dicussion of the Rand argument as well. In short, every categorial imperative includes some presumption of "the good", which could be rendered as a hypothetical. Example: "You should never lie, *if* you don't want to destroy the meaning of language." 63.166.224.67 16:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an incorrect interpretation of Kant, but since this is not a discussion board, I will not respond here. Perhaps some earlier section should be edited to make it more clear that perfect duty is a contradiction in conceivability, not in a contradiction in the will, which is imperfect duty. It's clear to me that Beck and Rand did not understand this distinction, and thought Kant referred only to contradictions of the will. --causa sui talk 22:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It may not be a discussion board per se but sometimes it is necessary to discuss issues being written about in order to establish a consensus as to the meaning or truth of those issues. I think if you state why it is an incorrect interpretation in your opinion then a fuller agreed interpretation can ensue. FWIW. Pbhj (talk) 01:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Prudential vs. moral maxims

message: Sucide was mentioned in the article with Kant's application of the C.I. to it.  Kant also applied the C.I. to three other moral issues (promises, charity, and laziness) in Grounding and thus I added them to the article, albeit while not realizing I didn't auto sign-in on this PC.  Good book for $5, and it came with the essay On a Supposed Right to Lie... Sabar 21:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't gone anywhere. Please maintain civility in your comments. Thanks. --causa sui talk 05:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kant's other applications of the categorical imperative

message: In interpreting the CI, there has been an almost word for word duplication of information between Deception and Intent to break promise.  Could we combine these two points since they really do speak of the same thing?—Red Baron 15:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repeated Text 

message: Just because our grammatical laws allow a sentence to be structured in some way, doesn't mean we ever should structure it so. Would it surprise us if Kant wrote so himself? Should we not say "I must drink something, if I wish to satisfy my thirst"?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.195.72.122 (talk) 14:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These sentences are simply inversions of one another; the assertion is unchanged. Nothing to get worked up over. --Adoniscik (talk) 19:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: In any case, it would be: "I must drink something if I wish to satisfy my thirst" (no comma); the comma is only used in the original because the dependent clause precedes the independent clause.--96.229.239.27 (talk) 05:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "If I wish to satisfy my thirst, then I must drink something."

message: Why aren't the fourth and fifth Formulations of the Categorical Imperative on this page? They may not be considered as important as the first three, but I'd still like to know what they are.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronfledge17 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The fourth and fifth Formulations

message: Both the examples (stealing and lying) appear daft, on my first reading. First, all the stealing in the world can not eliminate property. If you take every man-made thing I have I can just go and grab a flower from the park or a pet from forest and call it my property. The amount of matter in this world is too large to be entirely appropriated. Second, if everybody stole, the property would merely play musical chairs among the thieves, not disappear. Third, one can not prove that there is no property left. Maybe you did not look hard enough?  Regarding lying, the article says "...there must be language, but the universalization of lying would destroy the meaning of language." Lying admits degrees in severity and frequency. Most of us (i.e., those of us who are aware that lying exists) have the faculty to deal with this; to infer the truth from what has been said, rather than admitting it on a superficial level. A more mundane disproof is that everybody lies but language has not ceased to exist. As I said, it is a matter of severity and frequency.--Adoniscik (talk) 20:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perfect Duty 

message: What does Kant mean by this, in phrases such as "Now he asks the maxim of his action could become a universal law of nature."? The laws of nature, in the sense of the term I am familiar with, are not a matter of choice. Perhaps if he had said "be" instead of "become"...--Adoniscik (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Law of Nature 

message: In the intro the article compares Kantian morality/deontology to utilitarianism.  This seems implausible historically.  I mean Kant was older than Jeremy Bentham.  His works on morality precededs Bentham's and certainly Mill's.  What do you guys think about this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.239.195.11 (talk) 05:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The historical era to differing views on morals, should not be relevant to the content of an argument. Utilitarianism is merely used as a contrasting example, to help elaborate some of the points made by Kant. (Lucas(CA) (talk) 16:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This might be a fair criticism since the article suggests that Kantian ethics were presented by Kant as an alternative to utilitarianism. If the timeline doesn't add up in the way the anon suggests, then that shouldn't be in the article. --causa sui talk 02:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My philosophy professor has stated that Mill accused Kant of being a closet Utilitarianism. So, a person who helped define Utilitarianism claims that Kantian Ethics are in some ways similar, or at least worth comparing and contrasting. So, Kant cannot officially be called a Utilitarian, but discussion of Kantian Ethics vs Utilitarianism is worth keeping. --Dan 04:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understood Mill, he thought Kant's theory reduces to utilitarianism, and by implication Kantians should just abandon all the theoretical confusion of Kantian ethics and become utilitarians instead. I don't believe that he thought Kant was intentionally a utilitarian at all. --causa sui talk 20:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Utilitarianism 

message: The 3rd edition, translated by James W. Ellington, published 1993 by Hackett Publishing Company, Inc is actually named "Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals." All specific references given by this article refer specifically to the edition I just named and page numbers referenced also refer specifically to this 3rd edition by Ellington (I checked each and every one of them, footnote & page). Therefore, I changed the names of the work throughout this article to "Grounding for..."
So that I can be responded to, my name is Dan. 04:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dan - As a philosophy student, I can assure you that the work is referred to in all discussion as "The Groundwork" (see The Standford Encyclopedia Entry). Note also that the internal link goes to Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals not to "Grounding..." or to "Fundamental Principles..." as my translation would have it called. I fully appreciate that the translation you have so dedicatedly referenced has a different title, but I think for the purposes of an Encyclopaedia, it should be referred to by its more common title. -- vwoodstock (talk) 14:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Groundwork of..." vs "Grounding for..."

message: At the end of the section "Good will, duty, and the categorical imperative", the article states that "an act can have moral content if, and only if, it is carried out solely with regard to a sense of moral duty" [emphasis mine].  This is not my reading of Kant's theory.  Rather, he suggests that an act has moral worth if the motive of duty is the determining factor, but this does not preclude actions carried out from the motive of duty and the motive of, say, self-preservation, from having moral worth.  Mine is a similar reading to that of HJ Paton in The Categorical Imperative (University of Pennsylvania, 1947, pp. 49), in arguing against Schiller, whose account is broadly in agreement with this Wiki article as it stands at the moment.  --Benwilson528 (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a subject of some debate among Kant scholars. I think you're right that the article misrepresents the issue as settled. I wrote most of this article all the way back in 2005 as a sophomore undergraduate, and my attitudes about a lot of this stuff have changed significantly since then, but I haven't had time to update this. The way I put it in the article is probably too strong, even from the standpoint of the self-constraint theorists. However I would have some considerable trepidation about saying that Kant is totally comfortable with overdetermined action having authentic moral worth, since there is still some controversy about that. For an example of a defense of the self-constraint conception, see Allen Wood's Kantian Ethics () where he argues that an act that is in mere conformity with duty, but not done out of self-constraint, cannot have authentic moral worth (although it would still be the proper object of praise and encouragement).  I don't agree with his interpretation (and I just wrote a paper for him arguing against it), but his arguments are plausible and influential enough that I wouldn't be comfortable leaving them out of the article. --causa sui talk 23:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acting solely from the motive of duty 

message: A criminal on the grounds of the Golden Rule could dispute with judges or a man could refuse to give to charity, both of which are incompatible under the universality of the categorical imperative.
A man can believe that anarchy is best (free for all) and hence that theft should be universally allowed (ie no one should be allowed to deny, except by force, the right to anything. Yes, Kant addresses this but he's committed petitio principii assuming "property"; if you state it as "anyone can have anything they can forcefully acquire and keep" then there is no logical contradiction, I digress). Similarly a man can believe that charity should not exist and that anyone who can't look after themselves should perish. Neither position is inconsistent with the Categorical Imperative presented here.
Nor do I see what is meant by "A criminal [...] could dispute with judges [...]". Presumably it is being claimed that The Golden Rule requires that there be no punishment? That is not a necessary condition of The Golden Rule which kinda weakens the argument that this is a point of difference. IMO this badly needs revising to make logical sense, or if Kant was equally illogical to specify clearly where Kant supported this view. Pbhj (talk) 01:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Golden Rule 

message: This is a major statement and is presented as if it were a well-known fact. Unfortunately, I have never come across a reliable source making such a claim. 
Given that this article treats a major philosophical concept and thus deserves a fair share of respect, I propose that unverified claims like this be removed until an appropriate, reliable source is found and discussed on this page - and even then, that the statement be made in more broad terms (for instance: "According to ... , the concept of the categorical imperative should be considered a syllogism" ).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.223.157.50 (talk) 03:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious : "The concept of the categorical imperative is a syllogism." 

message: I've been looking for a actual quote from Kant on the categorical imperative, and thusly turned to this article. Here I find this:
:"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.",
with a reference to "Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals 3rd ed.". I looked up the ISBN, and found a preview on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Grounding-Metaphysics-Morals-Supposed-Philanthropic/dp/087220166X. On page v I found the following
:"This principle is nothing more nor less than the famous categorical imperative: Always act in such a way that you can also will that the maxim of your action should become a universal law"
The quote in the Wikipedia-article might be from some other page of the book, but I thought I ought to mention it. FSund (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misquote? 

message: I am removing the section, "Conscientious Nazi."  Killing all Jews can't be a categorical imperative; it could never be universally applied: not everyone can kill all Jews.
It's an interesting thing to think about, but I don't think we keep it the way it's written--maybe if someone provides a better argument from the reference text, we can put it back.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.48.20 (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conscientious Nazi 

message: Why choose to express the Golden Rule in archaic English quoted from the Christian Bible? Currently the article cites to Matthew and states: The 'Golden Rule' (in its positive form) says: "Therefore all things whatsoever would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them".
That seems like an overly confusing way to express it, and the only reason to select that formulation is to include someone's idea that the Golden Rule should be sourced to Christianity. Why not simply write, "Do unto others as you would have them do to you," and leave it at that? It hardly needs to be sourced in an article about the Categorical Imperative.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C08C:A6F0:21C:B3FF:FEC3:2572 (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Golden Rule

message: Let p be a proposition making a moral assertion. One obtains a formula describing the categorical imperative in terms of formal logic using deontic, modal and doxastic operators
 
\bigcirc p = \Diamond \forall c[\mathcal{B}_{c}(\bigcirc p)]   .
 
The identity reads: "It ought to be p if and only if it is possible that every agent c believes that it ought to be p".
--[79.211.193.51, original author] of the five edits in question ([10:48 to 13:01 to 28 May, 2014]).
I am going to revert the changes that added the section titled "Formalization". It caught my eye due to being (as far as I see) incorrect in several ways; first, there are several 'formulations' given by Kant, as mentioned in the article; second, this doesn't seem to restate any of them. In case support is found for this being a translation of the Imperative into a formal system, I have pasted it above; but there was no citation given, and I could not find reference to it, so I believe it not to be verifiable (against policy WP:V) and it also seems to be original research (against policy WP:NOR). Shelleybutterfly (talk) 13:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: NOTE: My undo was reverted two days later by a similar IP address to the one that made the addition in the first place, and without comment. I have placed a comment on the NOR noticeboard asking for review and never received a response. Rather than leave this material in I am going to undo it again; this is not the place to posit your own formalizations, any any added material should be verifiable and cited. I am tempted to explain why it's incorrect as well, but it is irrelevant, since the material simply doesn't belong here in the first place. Shelleybutterfly (talk) 08:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Formalization

message: as this article alludes to with the Eichmann example, the use of categorical imperative as justification for dubious actions comes up against the question, which of the many conflicting relevant imperatives should be obeyed in any given case? E.g. for Eichmann there was "avoid murder" imperative and "do your job as loyal government official" imperative and these were obviously in conflict. Both of these are as categorical as it gets -- i.e. what will happen if everybody starts murdering people? or if all government officials stop obeying their superiors or let's say quit the moment they are told to do something they don't like? -- but when they are in conflict you cannot obey them both. I am pretty sure this is a standard critique of CI as a guide to moral action; surprisingly the current article doesn't seem to reflect it, unless it is worded in some round-about way I am missing. 76.119.30.87 (talk) 02:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  conflicting imperatives when justifying an action criticism? 

message: I'm no native english speaker, but shouldn't it be "an universal law"?
: The "u" of "universal" is pronounced as "yoo", not as "oo", so the word begins with a consonant sound and takes "a" rather than "an", even though it begins with a written vowel. Much like how "an herb" is proper (for American English; see "an historic" for a British English example) because the "h" is silent. --Pfhorrest (talk) 08:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Dunno about American English, but in British English "'erb" and "'istoric", although common, are regarded as incorrect and "an historic" as pedantic (or, worse, francophile). Wikiain (talk) 02:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar 

message: Unlike relief of thirst and drinking something, acquiring knowledge and learning are the same.  So it seems that "learn" should be replaced.  Maybe with "study".  Study is not the only way to acquire knowledge - my knowledge of road accidents was not acquired through study - but the question here is of deliberate acquisition, so "study" might be right.  However, one can also acquire knowledge deliberately by placing oneself in a position where knowledge is likely to be acquired through experience - for example, to acquire knowledge of human nature by working in a bar.  So "study" doesn't seem entirely right.  Any other suggestions? Wikiain (talk) 02:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Example changed to "If I wish to pass this exam, I must study" by User:Cdg428.  Looks good to me. Wikiain (talk) 00:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "if I wish to acquire knowledge, I must learn" 

message: Supporters of Kant always find this part troubling and try to help him out of the problem. The section in this article about it ends with two sentences (with no sources provided for either) that read: "Neither of them explain why such duress would cause a truthful answer to be more consistent with the categorical imperative than refusing to answer. Subsequent commentators on the challenge often point out that there is likely no such reason." The section seems to end with the implication that Kant and Constant were just wrong and there can never be a reason why silence would be impermissible. But a scenario where the murderer first says, "If I ask you a question do you promise to give me an answer?" and gets a "yes" reply before revealing the murderous question would create a situation where the obligation to keep one's promises requires that you answer and the obligation to tell the truth requires that you provide the information requested. It does not take any convoluted machinations to create a situation where silence is forbidden.
Now I am sure some Kant apologist will want to reply to my comment with "original research!" to prevent it's inclusion, but I am not proposing that anything be added to the section, so rest easy. At the very least the fact that, as anyone can quickly see, it is not hard to find a reason why answering would be required explains the (unsourced) claim that neither says how it could happen (why would they explain that which they rightly take to be obvious?) so that sentence seems to be one that should be removed, as it implies the omission was important when there is no evidence that it was important. Also, the final sentence (also unsourced) should be removed as it is not sourced and it only reveals, even if it is true, the lack of imagination of some Kant apologists.
I propose removing both sentences. I would also propose removing the obviously speculative ending to the sentence before that (beginning with "perhaps because"). 134.41.94.151 (talk) 02:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it looks like this might be a low traffic page, so I'm going to go ahead and make the edits I have suggested here. I will leave the edit summary directing people here if they want to discuss the changes. Hopefully if anyone does object we can have a good discussion of the issue and come to a resolution and avoid an edit war, as too often happens here. Fingers crossed! 134.41.94.151 (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lying to a murderer 

message: This passage in "Nature of the concept":
:The categorical imperative is universally reasoning what action is moral separate from observable experience. The distinction, it is imperative each action is not empirically reasoned by observable experience, has had wide social impact in the legal and political concepts of human rights and equality.
seems uninterpretable.  The grammar does not make sense.  Zaslav (talk) 00:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gibberish 

message: This is a very complicated sentence of ~58 words without punctuation that I do not understand:
:Thus, insofar as individuals freely chosen ends are consistent in a rational Idea of community of interdependent beings also exercising the possibility of their pure moral reason is the egoism self-justified as being what is 'holy' good will because the motive is consistent with what all rational beings who are able to exercise this purely formal reason would see. 
I suggest breaking it up into several sentences and possibly adding commas to clarify it.
Question about the word "individuals": should it be one of these?
:an individual's 
:individuals' 
Ttulinsky (talk) 20:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  complicated sentence "Thus, insofar as individuals freely chosen ends ..." 

message: The free will is the source of all rational action. But to treat it as a subjective end is to deny the possibility of freedom in general. Because the autonomous will is the one and only source of moral action, it would contradict the first formulation to claim that a person is merely a means to some other end, rather than always an end in themselves.
''
How can individuality be compatible with that formulation? If every individual is always and end in themselves, then there isn't individuality. There is a single amalgam "hive mind." This reminds me of the problem with the so-called Golden Rule. Firstly, one would have to be omniscient (no individuality) in order to know how to treat others as well as one can. Secondly, everyone would ultimately have to be the same, no only due to the aforementioned requirement of omniscience but also due to the practical impossibility of being capable of being all things to all people, so long as significant individual differences exist. I am not a philosopher; I have only the slightest background in this. However, this is what occurred to me when I read the quoted text. I also find it humorous that so-called free will (which the article said Kant states can't be experienced/perceived/understood and therefore is arguably less real than a fantasy) is the source of all rational action. Something that doesn't exist (the only true definition of something that can't be perceived at all) being the basis for all action is absurd. 107.77.195.33 (talk) 04:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I should also add, since the Golden Rule has been discussed by several in these comments, that it seems to be a recipe for the erasure of the other — substituting oneself in their place. How a particular person wants to be treated cannot legitimately be the basis for how everyone else should be treated. It's solipsism. Perhaps it should be called the Golden Arrogance — particularly in light of how a subset of the population enjoys watersports. I have always considered the so-called Golden Rule to be plutocracy in a nutshell: Be prepared to be reduced to a function by those who know best. It carries the veneer of benevolence but the core is the corrupt demolition of the other. 107.77.195.33 (talk) 04:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  individuality incompatible with a particular paragraph?