My article “Kang PI” because of the title of the word “very bad”,
attracted a lot of criticism. Excluding non-rational criticism, rational criticism
involves two academic questions, namely, whether the title of academic paper
can be colloquially used and whether my general assessment of Kant’s ethics
is “bad” is valid. Since “bad” is an adjective and evaluation word transformed
from colloquial descriptives, rather than a dirty word, and there is no regulation
in academic laws and ethics against the use of colloquial expressions, and the
existence of academic conventions does not mean that it must be followed,
using colloquial expressions in articles is a legitimate behavior within the scope
of academic freedom. And since there is nothing to be said about all the articles
refuting the views of Kangpi so far, this shows that my general assessment of
Kant’s ethics as “very bad” can be justified. Moreover, Kangpi’s criticism of
Kant’s ethics is full of new ideas.