kant is a dumb fuck

Read for uni, kinda hated it, run on sentences made me wanna rip my hair out idk if the translation is just bad or what

I read this electronic edition: http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/pdf/kantgw.pdf, which did not strike me as particularly hard to read or understand, despite the fact that those are very common complaints re: this book. Actually, I was mostly impressed with Kant's reasoning and argument, apart from the unnecessary conditions of morality later in the book, but deontological ethics (focused on good in itself, etc. divorced from consequence or social contract etc.) just don't work, and the (first formulation of the) Categorical Imperative fails because it is so utterly restricted, ruling out the moral worth of going beyond duty's call, and of course also of actions that we would not will to become universal laws, but would perform in situations where there is real benefit as a consequence of that action not just for ourselves, but for others too. One may admire the concept and work within it, and believing in it may 'make exceptions' for herself, but this person also has to accept that her actions have no moral worth, are not good. That all falls apart. The biggest problem I have with Kant's ethical system is how utterly individual it is, and how essentialist. The thought behind deontological ethics is itself admirable; I do think we are really desperate to find a solid theoretical grounding for practical ethics, a grounding that various other sorts of metaethical positions just don't give us (the average non-Kantian gets all jittery if asked to say that there is nothing inherently wrong with rape in a state of nature, even though professional philosophers and such are willing to do so), but to accept Kant's system is to accept a deeply flawed one. I understand that it's more intuitively appealing to read The Humanity Formula and get the fuzzies than to read Hobbes, but at some point we surely ought to be able to get past what seems nice and confront the fact that the metaethical truth that allows for justice and beauty in practical application is probably going to have some seriously ugly theoretical side effects.

I can’t give this less than a three, because the ideologies in this book are foundational to almost any kind of modern thought (whether they’re born out of alliance with or opposition to Kant).
However, I don’t know if it’s a translation I read or Kant himself, but some of this is unreadable until you sit with it for a while. That could be considered good or bad depending on what you think philosophical writing should do to the reader, but personally I’m miffed about it and I’m going to be pouty since Kant can’t do anything about it.
And as the categorical imperative would suggest, you ought not berate me unless you’re feeling up to a bit of berating yourself

A very short very long slog, but a total gem of an argument.

If your reason commands you to help raise an old lady who has inadvertently fallen at your feet, you obey a categorical imperative, and your act is moral.
If you hope that by helping him, you will have a reward, you are obeying a hypothetical imperative (and in my opinion, it is not earning the tip).