Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Kantian Critique of "Sorry" by Justin Bieber

decodingvibes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 113 posts

Re: A Kantian Critique of "Sorry" by Justin Bieber

#91

Post by aidenn0 »

hliyan wrote: post #52
daymanstep wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Kant goes one level further. He says, basically: "before you do something, ask yourself: if everyone else in the world did what you're about to do as a matter of course, will it make the world better or worse? If it makes the world worse, then don't do it". This is not the Categorical Imperative. What you're describing is more like Rule Utilitarianism. Kantian ethics is deontological, not consequentialist.

Hence my qualification at the start. My problem with deontological ethics is that the justification of it abruptly hits an impenetrable wall, i.e. the rule or the duty, unless you appeal to some benefit or prevention of harm to rational beings. Even in the Metaphysics of Morals, the whole concept of duty would be arbitrary if not in reference to rational beings. But happy to be corrected.

It's been twenty years since I read Kant, but it differs from utilitarianism in that it has no concern for utility of others, rather it's "if I could pick rules for everybody to follow, those are the rules I should follow. Ergo if I never want anybody to lie to me, then it is always immoral for me to lie -- anything else would be a contradiction, since it assumes two rational agents coming to different conclusions.

Re: A Kantian Critique of "Sorry" by Justin Bieber

#92

Post by zmgsabst »

Waterluvian wrote: post #8
BubbleRings wrote: post #5

Funny. Take a simple pop song about apology and make an academic treatise on what a heartfelt apology looks like. On the other end of the spectrum would be to summarize it in the shortest form with the simplest words, instead of with many and multi-syllable words. How about this (not mine, I’ve heard this in addiction recovery rooms, where apologies and amends are often discussed): In the sentence “I’m sorry I did x,…

I agree with the sentiment. But, Whenever I catch myself reaching for “but” I recognize it is because I need to feel heard. What I did was unacceptable. But I didn’t do it in a vacuum and I need my grievances to be recognized. My belief is that omitting the “but” phrase is an act of faith. You need to trust that the other party cares about your feelings and side of the issue, too. Accepting an apology is just as deli…

You can just reverse the two phrases:

“I felt X, Y, Z, so I did P, Q, R, but I’m sorry for that because it caused you A, B, C.”

Your usage of “but” still invalidates the preceding phrase on behalf of the latter, which works here because the affirmed phrase is the apology.

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with stating your side — but if you mean it, end on the apology.

Re: A Kantian Critique of "Sorry" by Justin Bieber

#93

Post by andai »

aeve890 wrote: post #32
neogodless wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry we're getting so off topic here but... I suppose it helps to focus on the core of someone's strength, and the core of the content they are sharing. You could be a great engineer and a great blogger, but have no skill in making graphics. If you made the artistic choice to add AI-generated art to an excellent engineering blog post, I would forgive it -- assuming it wasn't detracting in some important way. Ove…

You're absolutely right! jk. I hate this situation of "everything is slop until proven otherwise" and the author doesn't have to be good at writing and drawing just to share their thoughts. But generally you don't expect a Michelin star level meal after having a turd sandwich entrée. It's just a natural pavlovian response at this point to see slop and expect slop. Totally unfair, I agree, but really hard to get rid o…

You don't have to be an artist! Just draw stickman doodles, it shows personality and effort, and I will respect you a billion times more than Promptbert Sloppenheimer.

Re: A Kantian Critique of "Sorry" by Justin Bieber

#95

Post by Dylan16807 »

zmgsabst wrote: post #92
Waterluvian wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with the sentiment. But, Whenever I catch myself reaching for “but” I recognize it is because I need to feel heard. What I did was unacceptable. But I didn’t do it in a vacuum and I need my grievances to be recognized. My belief is that omitting the “but” phrase is an act of faith. You need to trust that the other party cares about your feelings and side of the issue, too. Accepting an apology is just as deli…

You can just reverse the two phrases: “I felt X, Y, Z, so I did P, Q, R, but I’m sorry for that because it caused you A, B, C.” Your usage of “but” still invalidates the preceding phrase on behalf of the latter, which works here because the affirmed phrase is the apology. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with stating your side — but if you mean it, end on the apology.

I agree with everything there except the "if you mean it" part. Phrasing things imperfectly doesn't mean you don't mean it!

Re: A Kantian Critique of "Sorry" by Justin Bieber

#96

Post by hliyan »

aidenn0 wrote: post #91
hliyan wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hence my qualification at the start. My problem with deontological ethics is that the justification of it abruptly hits an impenetrable wall, i.e. the rule or the duty, unless you appeal to some benefit or prevention of harm to rational beings. Even in the Metaphysics of Morals, the whole concept of duty would be arbitrary if not in reference to rational beings. But happy to be corrected.

It's been twenty years since I read Kant, but it differs from utilitarianism in that it has no concern for utility of others, rather it's "if I could pick rules for everybody to follow, those are the rules I should follow. Ergo if I never want anybody to lie to me, then it is always immoral for me to lie -- anything else would be a contradiction, since it assumes two rational agents coming to different conclusions.

A good point, but (a) this merely sounds like a modification of the golden rule: do unto all others, without exception, as you would have done unto you, and (b) the rule isn't an end in itself because the end lies behind the "should" (e.g. why should someone not lie to me).

Re: A Kantian Critique of "Sorry" by Justin Bieber

#97

Post by hliyan »

woodruffw wrote: post #57
hliyan wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hence my qualification at the start. My problem with deontological ethics is that the justification of it abruptly hits an impenetrable wall, i.e. the rule or the duty, unless you appeal to some benefit or prevention of harm to rational beings. Even in the Metaphysics of Morals, the whole concept of duty would be arbitrary if not in reference to rational beings. But happy to be corrected.

> Even in the Metaphysics of Morals, the whole concept of duty would be arbitrary if not in reference to rational beings. In what sense? There's a sense in which there's no moral law without rational agents, but Kant himself is explicit about the "good will" being entirely independent of intended or obtained ends. In other words, no rational agent needs to benefit (or be harmed) in Kant's system for individuals to be…

I understand that this is the common (and perhaps the prevailing) interpretation, but my question has always been: once you subtract action potential and expected ends, what remains of the concept of "good"? We cannot simply end the inquiry by saying "good will" because it still doesn't clarify what it is that one wills. Disclaimer: not a Kantian scholar.

Re: A Kantian Critique of "Sorry" by Justin Bieber

#98

Post by marcosscriven »

layer8 wrote: post #69
mwillis wrote: post #37

This 3 minute song creates a fleeting portrait of a man, not necessarily Bieber, who we cannot know. The song captures the mindset of a character who, one might infer, cynically knows what he’s trying to do. It’s possible he has no interest in a heartfelt, meaningful apology. In fact, this character - who lives only within the song and the liminal world it creates - may be operating exactly to his own moral preferenc…

> you Kant analyze pop music with confidence Fun fact: The correct German pronunciation of “Kant” isn’t like “can’t”, but like “cunt”.

Hmm. Funny but not really right. The ‘a’ is as in ‘car’.

Re: A Kantian Critique of "Sorry" by Justin Bieber

#99

Post by jstrebel »

Although I read that this web site was made using AI, I still feel entertained by it. The topic requires precise language and that's something that an LLM is surely excelling at. Yet I feel that the concepts in the text are a bit repetitive; the write-up could have been shortened a bit.

Re: A Kantian Critique of "Sorry" by Justin Bieber

#100

Post by vintermann »

daymanstep wrote: post #48
hliyan wrote: post #47

Surprised this article didn't explain the categorical imperative before appealing to it. Here's my interpretation of it, although some would say that (4) is a utilitarian interpretation(even though it's globally utilitarian) and therefore it is not truly categorical. (1) We all know that doing what's best for oneself does not count as doing something "good" or "right". Even the worst psychopath or monster will do wha…

> Kant goes one level further. He says, basically: "before you do something, ask yourself: if everyone else in the world did what you're about to do as a matter of course, will it make the world better or worse? If it makes the world worse, then don't do it". This is not the Categorical Imperative. What you're describing is more like Rule Utilitarianism. Kantian ethics is deontological, not consequentialist.

Yes, Kant's version is strictly about logic: Is it possible to want everyone to follow the proposed rule without making the rule nonsense?
Post reply on HN