Originally Posted by NEOCON
Do you think if a known murder who kills women was going door to door and Kant answered the door and was asked if a woman was in the house and Kant had a woman in the house he would actually stick to his BS philosophy?
This argument against Kant is a red-herring. One is not obligated to allow anyone into their home; one is also obligated to defend both themselves and others against threats. In doing so, they just may not lie.
So, if it were a known murderer, coming to kill the woman, I imagine that Kant would simply kill the murderer. He would justify his actions based on the following:
1. The murderer is culpable for his prior actions; that culpability results in a liability; the liability one incurs for murder is the loss of the right to life; therefore, one may kill murderers. And,
2. Murderers have no respect for the Categorical Imperative and, hence, no respect for reason nor natural law; those who have no respect for reason nor natural law are not rational beings; one is justified in treating irrational creatures as means to a better end; hence, one is justified in treating the murderer as a means to the end (in fact, the First Perfect Duty of Self-Perfection and Self-Preservation) of defending oneself; hence, one is justified in killing the murderer.
The problem is that most individuals, if they have read any Kant, have only read Kant's Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals
and do not understand that he is simply laying the foundations for his moral works that follow: The Critique of Practical Reason, The Metaphysics of Morals, Religion within the Limits of Mere Reason
, and On Perpetual Peace
(in which he clearly states that it is just to go to war against societies and nations that have no respect for natural law and reason).