Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Severus Alexander, post: 2794074, member: 84744&quot;]Sure, and I think [USER=83845]@Curtisimo[/USER] has provided an adequate counterargument. (And [USER=76086]@Ken Dorney[/USER] too, really.)&nbsp; Just to make sure I have your argument right: Kant says the test for right vs. wrong is whether the maxim under which you act is universalizable.&nbsp; (Fancy version of the golden rule.)&nbsp; What makes it universalizable or not?&nbsp; Whether you can derive a contradiction from supposing that everyone follows the maxim. So you say: if everyone colludes in auctions, there are no auctions... contradiction! Kant says: colluding in auctions is wrong, it&#039;s absolutely forbidden. (Not a matter of degree.)</p><p><br /></p><p>A classic objection to Kant is that it&#039;s unclear what &quot;maxim&quot; one is acting under. There&#039;s usually a way of describing the maxim so that no contradiction results. So Curtisimo says: we&#039;re acting under the maxim to cooperate with a couple of friends... no contradiction.&nbsp; Or Ken says we&#039;re acting under the maxim to pool our resources with a couple of friends... no contradiction.</p><p><br /></p><p>Personally, I think Kant&#039;s ethical theory isn&#039;t very plausible.&nbsp; The whole universalizability constraint doesn&#039;t withstand scrutiny... partly due to the inherent problems in identifying the maxim, but also for its moral absolutism.&nbsp; More plausible is some sort of consequentialism, where morally better actions produce better consequences for all concerned, and morally worse actions produce worse consequences for all concerned.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>On that sort of ethical theory, the relevant comparison would then be: is it morally better not to cooperate with a few friends, or to avoid such cooperation?&nbsp; As others have said, it&#039;s much of a muchness... there isn&#039;t much difference between the two. When friends cooperate, it&#039;s a wee bit worse for the consignor and the auctioneer, and a wee bit better for the friends cooperating.&nbsp; When friends don&#039;t cooperate, it&#039;s the reverse.&nbsp; Pretty much a tie.&nbsp; Which means it&#039;s OK for friends to cooperate, pool resources etc. rather than avoiding cooperation. (And given the starting inequalities in terms of resources (cf. the reference to Clio!), this would be especially OK for people of limited means.)</p><p><br /></p><p>So there&#039;s some ethical reasoning for you.&nbsp; Did I pass the test? <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie2" alt=";)" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in