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.
Post History
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...
#2: Post edited
by
matthewsnyder
·
2024-09-11T18:23:15Z (2 months ago)
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 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.
- 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.
#1: Initial revision
by
matthewsnyder
·
2024-02-22T16:32:46Z (9 months ago)
Is Kant's categorical imperative applicable to Q&A sites like Codidact?
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 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.