Using Koorsgaard’s interpretation of Kant’s categorical imperative, how would I determine if an action passes the first test and/or the second test? What are both of the tests?
I'm not quite sure what you are asking nikky quinn, but I appreciate your comment! If you could give me a little more on what you are asking, I'll try to give a better answer. Thanks!
How would the practical contradiction apply to violence? For example with the maxim "i will invade a country to get resources" or "I will kill people I hate to bring peace of mind"
Thanks for your comment and good question Lendres Tapas! Kant apparently thinks that the suicidal person is contemplating ending their lives because they feel bad, implying that the decision to do it makes them feel better. The idea then, that 'nature gave us good feelings to extend our lives, not to end them' has a certain logic to it.
@@philjenkins1292 Obviously, the aim isn't to feel better. Rather, the aim is to end one's agony. In circumstances not involving suicide, ending one's agony (through some means or other) would lead to feeling better. However, in any context involving suicide, ending one's agony leads to feeling nothing at all. Given as much, the Teleological Contradiction argument is hopelessly inadequate as a way of coming to grips with the moral status of suicide. It ludicrously mischaracterizes the aim of the person who commits suicide. (I also think that the Practical Contradiction argument is hopelessly inadequate as a way of coming to grips with the morality of any course of conduct, but I shan't go into that matter here.)
