An interesting thing for Kant-lovers

[whiteypoker]

I think you're right to question your teacher's offer of a 10 grand reward. It might have been better phrased as a "substantial reward," and not put it into monetary terms, given that some people want what money cannot buy (i.e. for some particular person to love them).

At any rate, it is a good answer given the poorly phrased question. You said that you couldn't picture everyone trading their soul for money. You cited priests and clergymen as your counter example. Look at the question again from the way I phrased it though. If the reward was substantial to whom ever the devil offered it to (for instance money to a greedy person and love to a lonely person), could you see a clergyman giving up his sould in exchange for ten souls the devil already had?

This would give the clergyman a life of knowing that he had saved ten other souls; the ultimate sacrifice I would think for somebody of the cloth. What would your answer be in this situation?

[Tobias]

now now, answering that question would cross lines, so im gonna change it up a bit.

What if a POLICE OFFICER gave up his soul to save 10 lives of people he couldn't save.

But still, we are talking about Kant. We know that through the categorical imperative, you would have to first be able to concieve of everyone being able to do that. Then, if you can concieve of it, can you will it?

We could also say that if everyone kept on doing that, we could eventualy save everyone in the world, since if at least one person saved by the previous person did the same thing, they would bring back the other guy. As long as you have to people sac-ing lives, it would work out. But at the same time, that would probably piss off God.

Well, enough of this. Ive already crossed lines that I shouldn't have crossed, since this did touch on religion.

[whiteypoker]

Dah! its a thought experiment. I don't think discussing a topic that involves the broad sense of religion should be off limits. It is all encompassing the way I phrased it, for one could go back to the question and plug in, "If the devil offered a (satanist, baptist, agnostic, athiest) something he/she substantually valued." Substantially valued is the key here, not the religion itself. Its the degree to which the offered is valued by the offeree.

where abouts do you go to college anyway?

[Tobias]

Fairfield University. Majoring most likely in English and maybe minoring in philosophy, but mythology is a great possibility becuase I enjoy that a great deal.

And yes, it is a question about substantial values, but id rather not get into religious names and such, since people can view those skeptically. That, and the soap box says that ALL religious debates are off limits. Interestingly enough, this does have a taste of religion, what with the reference to satan, but I digress, it was just a reiteration of what the person reading the question would do.

That being the case, would you sell your soul to the devil to save 10 souls? Would you use the categorical imperative or another philosophical device/rhetoric to justify your answer senor?

That is all

[Godwyn]

This is also somewhat a trick question due to the fact that Kant based the Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals on how people should act in given circumstances completely apart from any religious basis. But anyways, I would say that according to Kant, the offer should be refused. I base this by both extending the rule that includes suicide to cover the soul, and by employing the rule about happiness as well. By sacrificing ones soul for a gain of some sort, one is using their soul, and by inclusion themself, merely as a means to an end, and as said by Kant
"Man, however, is not a thing and hence is not something to be used merely as a means; he must in all his actions always be regarded as an end in himself."
Next, as is shown by the question itself, we are expected to equate the selling of ones soul as being something that is bad, and that once one is dead, with the soul sold one would be in much trouble/pain and suffering, which would cause unhappiness. If one uses the categorical imperative to expand this act to everyone, and will it to be so, one is causing unhappiness to oneself as well as to everyone. This goes against both seeking ones own happiness, and also in the duty to help the happiness of others.
The sacrificing ones own soul to save others would not hold up to Kant however, as it is a duty to preserve ones own life. Again, while most of us view such as being a noble sacrifice much like martyrdom, according to Kant such an act is still using oneself merely as a means to some other end.