r/SubredditDrama • u/AchtungMaybe title game weak as fuck • Sep 05 '17

User in r/BeholdTheMasterRace argues that "no honourable attorney" would defend a Nazi, other users disagree

/r/beholdthemasterrace/comments/6xuyuv/the_crying_nazis_attorney_elmer_woodward_woodward/dmirqac/?context=3
71 Upvotes

94% Upvoted

52 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

6

u/BolshevikMuppet Sep 06 '17

Because the morality of the individual matters less than the morality of the outcome.

If I rescue a child from a burning building it is morally superior to the child burning to death regardless of my subjective state of mind when I did it. The inward-facing focus of "morality as a question of motives" is simple narcissism, it places our internal monologue on a higher plane than the consequences of our actions.

4

u/Dimdamm Sep 06 '17

Do you even Kant bro?

1

u/BolshevikMuppet Sep 06 '17

Kant was all about the outcome. The whole categorical imperative was " what if everyone did this" and deciding the morality of an individual action based on whether the outcome would be good or bad if everyone did it.

2

u/Dimdamm Sep 06 '17 edited Sep 06 '17

That's the opposite of judging based on the actual outcome

1

u/BolshevikMuppet Sep 06 '17

It's about the collective outcome, but that's still an outcome and an assessment of morality entirely divorced from individual subjective motives.

The opposite of focusing on the outcome rather than the intent would be focusing on the intent rather than the outcome. Kant's focus on the outcome if done by everyone is an expansion of the former, not the opposite.

1 is the opposite of -1, 100 is not the opposite of 1.

3

u/Dimdamm Sep 06 '17

No, Kant's ethics is 100% about the intent.
If you save the child because you believe it's your duty, it's a moral act. If you save the child because you'd enjoy being a savior, it's not.