Permanently Deleted
Imagine being so bad at arguing that you’ve convinced your mom you want to jerk off to her
This poor moron spent seven years only reading Kant and still has no idea how the Categorical Imperative works 😂
His mother was probably crying at how much of an idiot her son is
I wonder if he thinks that women who breastfeed their sons are inviting every man on earth to suck on their tits 🤔
Well how does it work, then?
Because once you start differentiating from “men should not perv on women” towards “sons should not perv on mothers” there is no stopping further progression to “Dave should not perv on Bertha”.
Which means its whole attempt to generalize moral laws falls apart, and you end up having to think about every unique case anyway.
Once you get to the point where every situation is unique, and you try to apply Categorical Imperative, then it just become analogous to Nietzsche’s Eternal Recurrence.
There is just nothing there, it is an empty theory. It just says: imagine that this thing you were doing were to happen more.
If some fascist says: I want everyone to kill the Jews, then Kant’s ethics has nothing in opposition.
When Kant makes the generalization against lying, the critical issue is where he draws category boundaries to justify which situations are sufficiently analogous.
Unless there is a justified and systematized way to draw those boundaries, this entire ethical framework goes nowhere.
Well, it’s not some rigid and inviolable law, which is what makes his interpretation so funny. It’s just a very very basic way of framing moral arguments. “I want to kill the Jews” would be interpreted as “I want to kill people because their religion is different”, which would also put Christians in the crosshairs, thus proving the original sentiment to be immoral.
I’m not an expert, but I believe the Categorical Imperative was meant more as a rhetorical tool to demonstrate one’s morality towards others. I definitely agree that it isn’t some bulletproof code.
You’re doing the same thing, you’re generalizing from something more specific towards “their religion is different”.
It is the same as moving from babies, to son, to any man, to any person, and vice-versa.
By changing arbitrarily where you draw category boundaries, without direct ethical or theoretical justification, you could make the Categorical Imperative say whatever you want.
All it takes in this context is for the Nazi to say: the way you define Jews is wrong, they are not the same as other ethnicities/religions.
And one could just as easily generalize further to “do not kill any person” then opposing even self-defense or revolutionary action.
When you readjust those category boundaries, you are simply using moral intuitions outside of Kant’s Categorical Imperative.
In this way, the Categorical Imperative itself has nothing of value to say about ethics. It is just crap like all of deontology.
Dude stop repostinf my posts
The Categorical Imperative seems pretty much useless for making life decisions. “Hmm I like growing plants, maybe I should be a farmer? Ah but what if everyone was a farmer, there’d be nobody to make video games, best not then. I am very intelligent.”
that doesn’t sound right, but i don’t know enough about kantian ethics to dispute it
The categorical imperative relates to how people should act in specific situations, not to choosing career paths.
It’s got problems as a universal guiding principal, but the guy in the OP fundamentally misunderstood it despite being obsessed with Kant for seven years lmao
