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

101–110 of 113 posts

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

#101

Post by vintermann »

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.

It's not about what you actually want in this case, but what you could want. It's impossible to want people to betray your trust, because if you wanted it then it wouldn't be betraying your trust.

So that type of lying is strictly forbidden. You do not want to be deceived. But if include in "lies" such things as reading fiction aloud, then that can be permissible as you can want that: you aren't really deceived or betrayed.

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

#103

Post by ksbd-pls-finish »

jedimastert wrote: post #73
TRiG_Ireland wrote: post #68

> We cannot attribute any moral judgment to Bieber as a human being; we can only answer the moral question as posed in the song. As a semi-off-topic little rant, why do we always assume that pop singers are singing about themselves and their own experiences? Can a song, as a work of art, not have an independent existence, much as a novel may? Pop, rap, and maybe country songs are all now assumed to be about the artis…

The question might be asked "why would we assume the singer isn't singing about themself?" In modern pop music it's become it's become standard that the "character" an artist "plays" when they're performing or writing is themself; there's no suspension of disbelief like with a play where there's an entire context around knowing that what you're seeing is a portrayal. Same with a book or movie or other works of fictio…

At least in metal music we usually doesn't assume the artist sings about themselves.

Fortunately most artists are neither fighting dragons nor worshiping satan.

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

#104

Post by ksbd-pls-finish »

IshKebab wrote: post #83

> “Is it too late to say sorry?” is actually not a moral question at all when viewed through a Kantian lens. The question in itself contains the answer: yes, it is too late to say sorry, not in the sense that has anything to do with the nature of time, but rather the form of the question itself shows that the song fundamentally misunderstands what an apology is. Further cementing my view that philosophy is 95% bullsh…

>I think they fundamentally misunderstand what an apology is

Did they, or do you? The point of view presented in the blog post is: "If you wronged someone you ought to apologize. The fact that this person will not forgive you (it's too late for that) does not influence wherever you should or should not apologize"

Which, as someone who is definitely not into philosophy, kinda makes sense?

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

#105

Post by mxmilkiib »

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”.

there was once a small radical artis gallery in Edinburgh (as a part of the The Forest, when it existed as a 4-floor social centre) called "Total Kunst"

(which is, in part, a play on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gesamtkunstwerk, or "total art")

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

#106

Post by woodruffw »

hliyan wrote: post #97
woodruffw wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I think the very short version of Kant’s view is that “good” is not impinged upon by any particular desire or action. What makes the good will “good” is that it operates in conformity with duty, and duty in turn is derived from reason (and reason is a property of our ability to self-legislate, i.e. give ourselves law without engaging in casuistry.)

(GMS 4:397 and onwards for that.)

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

#107

Post by captainzidgel »

jstrebel wrote: post #99

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.

From the bottom of the article:

> No AI was used to generate the text for this article. The cover image and the voiceover in the audio version of the article is AI-generated. The cover image is made using Google Gemini’s latest image model while the voiceover uses OpenAI’s tts models.

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

#108

Post by ocodo »

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…

I was just going to say, it's a song about "can I get away with this shit?!"

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

#110

Post by aidenn0 »

hliyan wrote: post #96
aidenn0 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

I am by no means an apologist for Kant, but his ethics are clearly deontological, not consequentialist. He categorically rejected applying empiracism to ethics. Again, my memory is fuzzy, but I believe that Kant further argues that ethical rules are fixed, since any rational actor properly reasoning from first principles would eventually land on the same set of rules.

It should not be surprising that contemporary ethical systems yield similar results in everyday situations because nobody will get published with their ethical theory of "why you should murder at least one innocent person per day."

Post reply on HN