Welcome to the staging ground for new communities! Each proposal has a description in the "Descriptions" category and a body of questions and answers in "Incubator Q&A". You can ask questions (and get answers, we hope!) right away, and start new proposals.
Are you here to participate in a specific proposal? Click on the proposal tag (with the dark outline) to see only posts about that proposal and not all of the others that are in progress. Tags are at the bottom of each post.
Is Kant's categorical imperative applicable to Q&A sites like Codidact? Question
On sites like Codidact, the question often arises about what rules should be imposed on user behavior. What is a good question? What is a good answer? What behaviors are desirable and which are not? The debates rage on for decades on this site and beyond, partly because all users have subtly different goals when using this site, and wish to support a rule framework that align with those goals.
Kant laid out a principle for judging the morality of an act, which I think comes down to: "If everybody acted this way, would you be happy with the result?"
Can this be applied to reasoning about rules on a site like Codidact? Is it rational to ask, "if everyone asked this type of question, what sort of site would we have" as the main way of deciding on what the rules should be? What are the challenges in using the categorical imperative in this way?
I am deliberately asking in the philosophy section, not meta. This is because I am more interested in a discussion of the philosophical aspects with other users interested in philosophy, rather than the actual positions of the site admins.
3 answers
You are accessing this answer with a direct link, so it's being shown above all other answers regardless of its score. You can return to the normal view.
Interesting thought/question trying to apply a philosophical concept on the "main problem" of Q&A!
Roughly translated the imperative approach is as you said "Act in a way that the maxim of your doing could be the general rule" (maxim being the intended purpose or results or goal).
So if a user comes here he surely would say "of course" to the question if he would endorse that everybody posts questions like he does/did. Because in the eyes of a user (of any human being) there is nothing inherently wrong with the way they are and behave and formulate a question. The problem is more on the receiving end which imposes standards on quality which are hard to be met by unexperienced users. Which I find arrogant, toxic and rude up and beyond (imho).
Anyone learns that asking a question is the simplest thing to do to get a piece of knowledge. Q&A sites draw heavily from that concept. This is also the reason why they are appealing to so many.
The users coming her have the intention to seek help by humans who in their eyes offer this help because they provide a Q&A site, clearly indicating, that the main input is the question. Many are in need of such places of asking questions when not being able to help themselves or do not fully understand something. This is not inherently wrong in any way either. Not everybody knows everything.
But the Q&A sites actually pervert this concept, because the ones that answer, focus on the "answer" part of the Q&A. And because they form the mainstay community, they are of the opinion, they can make the rules (which is a fallacy, imho).
Answerers are more concerned in what they can provide as an answer than trying to understand what the question/questioneer wants and the intention behind it is. So, in fact all the questioneers become jesters to entertain those who want to answer things. Is that something to be endorsed by everyone and should be the general rule (in hindsight/a posteriori, after the case has happened)?
Kant's imperative would (always, imho) fail "in the situation" (a priori, before the case happened). Any answerer will not see any difficulties in imposing the sole responsibility for a question to the user in order to make his answer shine the brightest. Of course yeah, the maxim of this should totally be the general rule, right? ...
Essentially, I am of the opinion that the imperative approach does not work on an individual, momentary scale. You could try to conclude from a higher point of view, maybe in retrospective about some events (a posteriori). You can use it as a measure for those who are aware of the "true meaning and application" of such formulas and want to think about it. But it surely fails in every practical application in a "real-world scenario" if one thinks that phrase can sort out things or is something absolute to adhere to.
0 comment threads
I think the categorical imperative is often trivialized as “basically the age-old adage of ‘the Golden Rule’”, whereas it is a more nuanced idea, especially in the context of related philosophical theories. Pending further study, I myself would not really know what it is about, and I would honestly rather remove the Kant reference from your question, and make use of your own principle.
I think you are asking about analyzing how criteria placed on the local level (of questions themselves) magnify to the experienced quality of the entire site, as a user, on the global level. That’s a perfectly decent question to ask. I suggest we study the question systematically, using computer modeling, if possible.
0 comment threads
Let's first consider the side of those who have a question.
If you have a question, you want an answer. Now there are two ways to get an answer: You find that someone already asked what you want to know, and someone already answered it, and the second one is that you ask yourself. The first case is the best case, but that requires that the question you seek for is not drowned in a flood of irrelevant questions.
Also, if you do ask a question, you want an answer. That requires someone willing to give you an answer. If you are constantly being asked the same question over and over again, of if the answer would be found with minimal effort by yourself, the experience for those answering will be exhausting and frustrating, and they will no longer be willing to give answers. But what is the worth of a question if nobody answers it?
An important thing to consider for a Q&A site (and, frankly, any place where people provide something for free) is that you are not entitled to anything. In the case of a Q&A site, you are not entitled to get an answer to a question. Answers you get are a gift, and everyone is free to give or not give that gift.
If you are asking, you are not just affecting what answer you get, but also what answers others will get int he future. Both people who will have the same or a similar problem, and people who will have other problems and want to find people willing to answer them; the latter includes you in the future, BTW. Therefore the imperative here means that you should ask: How should I ask if I want everyone to have a good experience with the site? This includes both people who will ask in the future, and people who answer the questions.
This in particular means you should put effort in your question. Effort to help those who might answer it, effort to help those who might have a similar question in the future so that they can profit from finding yours and the answers to it, and effort to help those that will be asking in the future.
Asking a good question is not easy. Indeed, sometimes it can be harder than writing a good answer. But you are profiting from all those who asked good questions before, both by finding ready answers to questions you have that others have asked and answered before, and by them nurturing an environment where people are willing to write good answers to your new questions.
Another point to consider is whether this is the right place for your question. You might think, of course it is, after all it is a question about that topic. But if the question is too specific, it may be better both for you and for the site to ask on a forum instead.
Next, let's look at those answering questions.
Again, the answers they give will affect not only the one who asked the question (that part should be obvious), but also to the general users or potential users to the site. Obviously those who answer should do their best to actually help the asking person. But that's not the only consideration, they should also have in mind those who might come across the question in the future and have similar, but not identical questions. Therefore when answering a question, you should not just try to give the information the questioner needs, but also to make the answer as general as possible without jeopardising the goal of helping the immediate asker and without going off-topic.
Now, like with asking a question, there's also the decision whether you should answer at all. The first consideration is, of course, whether you can actually give a helpful answer. An unhelpful answer not only doesn't help the asking person (obviously), but also decreases the value of the site as a whole, as future visitors seeking help will also find those unhelpful answers, and then might turn away from the site as a whole, while otherwise they might have become valuable contributors.
A probably more controversial topic is whether you should answer a question that you think should not have been asked on the site to begin with. On one hand you might argue that answering those questions might encourage the asking person to participate more on the site, and then learn about how to ask better question. On the other side, answering bad questions may encourage asking more such questions, which in turn would decrease the value of the site, both for future seekers for answers, and for future potential providers of answers.
Finally, let's look at the curation of the site, things like deciding whether to close or reopen a question, or maybe even delete it.
This is probably the hardest decision, but the easiest to describe in this context: The whole point of site curation is, after all, to make the site better. That is, quite obviously for every curative decision, the question is whether the positive effects outweigh the negative effects (and most curative actions will have negative effects due to their nature). That is, the imperative here says "if everyone would apply those rules when curating the site, would that make the site better?"
0 comment threads
0 comment threads