>Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.
AHAHHHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAH
Other urls found in this thread:
It isn't funny at all, incel
Meanwhile,
your non-existing gf cheats you
a nigger robs you
and you get fucked by corrupt kikes
lol
Hard to deny that it's more moral.
Imagine botching Kant so badly that you see this as a conclusion to his thought. His ethics aren't rooted in do goodery or altruism as your brain dead undergrad ethics 101 professor made you think. These allow an individual to be truly free by not constantly vacilating between various whims and conditions. You're nothing more than a slave to circumstance without the Kantian framework
Why do people who don't believe in moral realism come into threads on morality and ask "but why should I do that, though?", as if it were some profound question? You know very well that not a single axiom will make you moral, and that you'll ultimately just do whatever you desire to. So why even pretend like you're looking for a reason to believe in/become moral?
I'm asking this honestly, because I genuinely don't understand why you're even pretending to be looking for a maxim that'll make you moral, when only you yourself could ever do that, by your own deciding to. I'm not saying I know what constitutes perfect objective morality, but you guys really sound like teenagers when you deny any existence of such or ask the question of "why" to any assertion made in favor of it, as if you couldn't ask that for literally anything else.
>do goodery and altruism is brain dead compared to muh Kantian ethics
Yikes. I guess an antinatalist public shooter is moral for imposing on the world what he simultaneously wants the world to do to itself.
Not what I said you fucking moron. You're genuinely retarded and unable to see things without relation to current events. If this is the opposite to that, if that is your first thought rather than self interest for ones own good, you're not only a brainlet but very likely mentally ill.
Cause I want to know why you believe in moral?
Something that changes over time.
Something that is subject to a paradigm.
>You guys really sound like teenagers when you deny any existence of such.
Moral doesn't exist, prove me wrong.
It's just a way to keep the sheep calm imo.
>CLEAN YOUR DOODY
>tfw Kant would have your back on pro-cunny arguments
i steal pic
it is yours, friend
What's braindead about altruism, user? That sounds like what you were stating. If not, please correct me. And why is altruism incompatible with Kantian ethics, Kantian ethics only outlines the framework for the behavior, and not the behavior itself?
Then why don't you live by this to the fullest? Harm people, steal, lie, and so forth? I hope you'd do all of this wherever you can get away with it, otherwise you sound like you're following morality to some degree.
I do this thins taking into account social repercussions as a factor. Like most of the people who think like me.
Kant is heterosexualpilled
so youre basically a psychopath
Call it how you want.
But morality is not something you can acquire I think. I lack morality, there is nothing I can do about it.
Imo, morality is stupid.
what does this have to do with Kant though? he is against cheating and stealing
If these social repercussions were to dissolve (ex. like the Purge), say just for a day or a week, what kind of things would you do?
Empathy can increase over one's lifetime, if you make the effort to.
>But morality is not something you can acquire I think. I lack morality, there is nothing I can do about it.
ye, youre simply a defective human
and niggers
>If this is the opposite to that, if that is your first thought rather than self interest for ones own good, you're not only a brainlet but very likely mentally ill.
I don't hear any responses to the hypothetical situation he was proposing.
do you want to be cheated or defrauded?
I don't own guns and I think people who are outside at night want to kill other people.
So I will probably sit in my penthouse and grab some popcorn.
>do you want to be cheated or defrauded?
no?
Well, I don't see how that is defective.
I guess I'm just different.
Nazis thought they had morals and they ended up doing what today is called immoral acts, so did the church when was burning "witches", so I don't really care about a moralist calling me defective. Yu are not different.
then Kant says you should defraud or cheat.
what the fuck are you talking about, no he doesn't. quote me one passage where Kant advocates fraud or cheating
I meant shouldn't sorry.
What if my maxim is maximised milker inspection and my ego wills it acceptable to become universal law.
>Well, I don't see how that is defective.
because if everyone was a psycho we would've backstabbed each other into extintion 40k years ago
you're just a parasite, exploiting others' good will
do you think Kant's deontology varies from person to person? it has nothing to do with your personality or what you want or think is good or bad. it is an absolute morality; stealing violates the categorical imperative in every single instance regardless of the person or the purpose
as an addendum to this point let me add that I am absolutely comfortable with others inspecting my male milkers as a sacrifice for me to do so to others (read: busty women).
But you yourself, with the opportunity to kill, would not do so?
>40 k ago
and kikes
Yeah, I'm pretty sure it does. The moral is something very abstract, this is one of the problems.
Not to a random, I don't take any benefit from doing it.
as an addendum to both these posts (so far proved absolutely moral)
I should note that I am perfectly fine with people fondle my male milkers so long as I also get to eventually return the favour to female milkers of high stock, abroad, preferably at the beach, I have no problems with other men touching her milkers either.
hey, as long as you enjoy it.
Insults without answers don't make you look smart, user.
>Like his theoretical philosophy, Kant’s practical philosophy is a priori, formal, and universal: the moral law is derived non-empirically from the very structure of practical reason itself (its form), and since all rational agents share the same practical reason, the moral law binds and obligates everyone equally.
-- IEP
>Thus not only are moral laws together with their principles essentially distinguished among all practical cognition from everything else in which there is anything empirical, but all moral philosophy rests entirely on its pure part, and when applied to the human being it borrows not the least bit from knowledge about him (anthropology), but it gives him as a rational being laws a priori, which to be sure require a power of judgment sharpened through experience, partly to distinguish in which cases they have their application, and partly to obtain access for them to the will of the human being and emphasis for their fulfillment, since he, as affected with so many inclinations, is susceptible to the idea of a pure practical reason,but is not so easily capable of making it effective in concreto in his course of life.
-- Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals
And if you could benefit, you would?
>Thus not only are moral laws together with their principles essentially distinguished among all practical cognition from everything else
No, they are burry with multiple interpretations.
I really don't care if academics or Kant himself says they are clear, they are not.
This is why we have no concrete moral. This is why ideologies exist this is why people argue about it.
Look, its very simple. Reward risk rules my life, its not complicated.
If I kill a random I get 1 M euros? I'll do it.
If I kill a random I get 1 euro? I won't do it.
samefag
Original user here, can the other two please screenshot the page? My phone has no screenshot capacity. Also telling that he still hasn't given me an answer, but is now trying to "change the subject".
Ok pals, seems like my post is dead, going to jerk off to some Gibi Asmr videos cya losers
lol im gonna get ebin ubvotes on /r/Yea Forums
That's the kind of thought process that gets you twenty years in a Siberian prison, user.
Try it and see what happens, it'll be like that Yes movie with Jim Carrey, maybe you'll get into some zany goofs and gaffs
based
When my friend's pursuer asks me where he has fled to, I would certainly put him on a false trail. Why does he ask precisely me, the
friend of the pursued man? So as not to be a false, traitorous friend,
I prefer to be false to the enemy. I could certainly with courageous
conscience answer: I will not tell (so Fichte decides the case) ; in
this way I would vindicate my love of truth and do for my friend
pretty much-nothing, because if I don't mislead the enemy, he may
accidentally take the right road, and my love of truth would have
betrayed my friend, because it prevented me from the-courage
of lying. Anyone who has an idol, a sacred thing, in truth must
humble himself before it, may not defy its demands, may not resist
courageously; in short, he must renounce the heroism of the lie.
Because no less courage belongs to the lie than to the truth
As important as he was to philosophy Kant was an awful writer.
how can morals keep the sheep calm if they don't exist?
Are you dumb?
The nigger does not want to get robbed hinself. So making crime a universal law is against his self interest.
this is the point faggot, even dumb people don't believe in this rule so they can take advantage of you.
The same way the boogeyman keep the kids calm.