"I'm a kantian"

I dont like maxims because they're retarded.
Example: I take an action which I consider to be beneficial to me and others (or at least not hurtful to them), however this action involves a large degree of risk and temptation. Knowing myself, I choose to act still, knowing that my intellect, knowledge, and moral character would prevent me from any moral downfall. Would I trust the rest of the mankind with the same action though? Fuck no.
Now tell me, Kantkek, where did I err in such judgement.

Not a Kantian, but you sound like you're approaching the profound question that so many edgelords ask:
Why should I be moral?

Whose answer is of course non-existent, you can live exactly how you wish, and to even be asking the question of why for such a self-evident behavior requires an incentive, then it's clear only something crude like a system of rewards and punishments (worldly or otherworldly) would be able to make you so, and so in that case you're best off becoming Christian or Muslim or similar, who will provide you such a framework.

If I've mischaracterized you I apologize. But I've certainly characterized some people out there. It should be fairly straightforward that a person shouldn't act unless they'd accept their actions to be universally pursued.

That's why I'm asking for a better explanation of it

>compass of goodness
You better elaborate, user, lest I label you a pseud.

Oh my bad, you're no edgelord at all. In my case I'd say maxims are a generally nice framework to follow, and apply for foundational behaviors, but certainly don't need to be invoked for everything.

Kindness and compassion and reciprocation to others and similar "positive essences".

You’re making the assumption that everyone on Earth doesn’t also consider themselves above moral downfall.

Your action would not be moral or better said could not be.

If I know myself to be able to balance on a rope above an active volcano while juggling little puppies, I still I have to say that it wouldn't be moral to actually do it.

Trascendental Aesthetic is the shortest and easiest part of the book, user, just read it.
In short: time and space, for Kant, are the necessary pre-requisites for cognition in general, and the reason why a priori (experience-free) judgements are possible. Kant never says that time and space cannot exist outside human perception. His insight is to deny the idea that time and space are "things", in the same way an apple is a "thing". Rather, time and space are a cointainer in which things can be thought of at all.

Responsible drinker: "One more beer and that's it"
Alcoholic: "One more beer and that's it"
Are you implying that the first one isn't justified in his judgement, or that the second one isn't capable of seeing the mistake in his thinking and correcting it in the future.

dude just read the first 150 pages, its the transcendental aesthetic. its like the first chapter baka.

Are you agreeing with me or something? Because in a kantian world you wouldn't be allowed to balance on that rope despite being capable of that.

lol didnt see this before posting
my B

I'm not sure if you're replying to the right guy there, but if that's an argument against the categorical imperative then I think it's a bit weak. The alcoholic began his life as the responsible drinker - just because one person is less susceptible to moral downfall at one point in their life, doesn't mean that continually acting immorally won't eventually reduce them to morally downfallen state.

I'd prefer to just read him fully when I finally do, just because of how influential a thinker he is. But that said your argument does actually explain it better, thank you. I need to read him to properly understand the exact implications though, and how it ties to your/his point about the "a priori" deductions. Also was Kant a Platonist of any kind? Did he lend his own view on the nature of abstract objects?

>im a german idealist

Attached: 1553015121696.jpg (547x519, 59K)

Okay user I will try to, when I get time. Kant has intimidated me for a very long while and I wanted to read other things before I finally had lunch with him.

fuck you, dumbass. can we make a /phi/ to catch all this boring shit along with the jesus fuck posts? please

Attached: gopher-side_color.png (416x554, 13K)

These threads usually have some of the more interesting discussion on the board. Much better than 'books for this feel' threads. Why does this bother you, of all things?

this stemmed from this discord chat didn't it?

based

>I'm a -ian
How can one's thought be wrapped up in totality by the works of a single man?

id rather see threads about books

Is what you want to say, that people are ultimately good and would act according to their nature, that is, moral, if they knew better (platonic take) or were free instead of being enslaved by their desires (Christian take)? I would agree with the latter but it's by no means a trivial statement, and requires a lot of explication to be properly understood.

Go and make some them. I'd rather take threads about Kant than thinly-veiled /r9k/ posts.

fuck you

Have sex.

again? how many times do people usually do that

1: Morality is what you ought to do.
2(1): Therefor you ought to be moral.
It's tautological.
(Im an ethical egoist, but morality is important)

Typically more than zero, so you'd better get started.

> why yes, i would let my friend die by actively helping the killer! lying is immoral bro

Attached: ZHqCbpL8mPI.jpg (521x520, 31K)

>"im a deleuzean"

Attached: superthumb.jpg (300x250, 15K)

morality itself is unreasonable
fuck you

>not an argument
Morality is simply the regulation of behavior according to abstract principles. Arguing over morality is simply to see which principles can be deduced from necessary normative axioms to normative positions.

Why do you not desire to be moral for itself, such that a tautology like that is meaningless regardless? You don't need formal argumentation for most occupations of your life, why do you need one for morality?

god damn boy do you ever stop talking? come here and open that sexy annoying mouth of yours

>i should be allowed to follow the most expedient path possible and fuck the consequences

>I really really care about the consequences of my actions, that’s why I adhered to an autistic abstract principle knowing it would get my friend murdered

So is this thread only about Kant's ethics?
I'd say those are indeed arguable and might be seen outdated by now but taking his work as a whole I cannot imagine any even slightly intelligent person not finding something valuable in his thought. It is not for nothing that he almost single handedly changed the perspective of all western philosophy to follow.

>Why do you not desire to be moral for itself, such that tautology like that is meaningless regardless?
I do desire to be moral for itself becuase I'm an ethical egoist. Yes it's rather meaningless, but it's nice to have some philosophical grounding.
>You don't need formal argumentation for most occupations of your life, why do you need one for morality?
Actually you do, it's something you do by instinct for almost everything.

>it's okay to lie to people as long as I justify it with this ridiculous hypothesised scenario, not lying is just an autistic abstract principle anyway

Hegels formalism critique of Kant is really where its at

Yeah baby, I got something for your kantian right here, come here and let me get a little stank.

>Not being an egoist

Attached: IMG_20190329_004351_570.jpg (1280x720, 76K)

who are you quoting?

newfag fuck off

Ethics as a whole is always built on maxims. It’s impossible to built towards a morality without accepting maxims in some way. Kant builds his off reason, which led Hegel built his own on Freedom, which was heavily influenced by Kant’s concept of duty as derived from the categorical imperatives. To be moral, one must do so freely, but to free one must conform to reason and not to individual or personal will/desire.