this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2025
107 points (97.3% liked)
Asklemmy
45953 readers
2461 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
In short, Kant said people should be the goal, not the means.
It's ok to make yourself dinner.
It's ok to make your friend dinner because you want to make them happy.
It's not ok to make your friend dinner because you want to have sex with them.
It's not ok to make your friend make you dinner because you don't want to cook.
Every facet of capitalism is exploitation by design as profit is unpaid labor. However classless socialism isn't automatically devoid of exploitation.
None of us asked to be here. I certainly don't want to be here anymore. Placing the value of a life upon the imaginary lines it landed between, how much money it's parents had, or the color of it's skin are all pretty fucked up.
First of all, Kant’s principle of humanity is just one component of his philosophy. Boiling down all of Kant’s corpus to saying that that that is it “in short” is ridiculous. You can’t just separate the principle of humanity from Kant as a whole. The categorical imperative is not just the principle of humanity. You also said that it is socialism plus Kant but didn’t even seem to read my explanation of immaterialism in Kantian metaphysics.
Because you asked what I meant. Of course what I meant didn't include your response to it. You almost seem offended my thoughts weren't yours.
It’s because your thoughts aren’t inline with Kant’s actual philosophy and is an oversimplification of it to just one principal which bastardizes both what socialism is and what Kant wrote.