An armed man with murderous intent comes to your house. He demands to know the whereabouts of your friend...

this

Kill the guy.
>would you be fine if it was universal law?
Yeah, i would. An armed man comes into your home with murderous intent and you DON'T shoot him? Nevermind my friend being inside bla bla bla- I don't give a rats ass. A man with murderous intent has entered my home. That's all I need to know. Clip the motherfucker.

enjoy jail t. lawfag

If it was universal law that i or anyone could kill any armed thug that comes into our home (they way it should be, btw) I would be fine with it. I'm well aware this isn't the case. Welcome to the jewnited states of America, am i right?

he doesn't intend to murder you, only your friend, about whom you have no information other than that he is your friend.

You sound like a really lousy friend

I tell him the truth then attack when his guard is down.

i give him a lil kiss on the lips and tell him he can join me and my friend in my closet ;)

I mean maybe my friend deserves it but if that's the case I shouldn't have let him hide in my house.

Nothing you said refuted my statement

>“Why yes my friend is here, how could you tell?”
>promptly take the gun from him when his guard his down, tell him to leave, and mail the gun to his address because I am no thief

Attached: D6D187AD-0898-4B94-A994-E8EA194CF4CC.jpg (675x832, 50K)

commit suicide on the spot, bearing the moral weight of the situation on myself

I would give the man a false location.
>would you still endorse it if the maxim behind your response was turned into universal law?
Yes, since the man came with murderous intent, and murder is unjustified killing.

Based

By announcing his location, you put your friend's life at risk if you lose the fight.
Go back there.

If I were the guy I would be dumbfounded by the appearance of so blatant a brain tumor.

this isn't what kant is instagram normalfags go back

Tell my Volkskamaraden that the Jeus are in the floor and offer him some fresh milk while we smoke pipes.

based

redpilled

Only in Texas.

I swear I will tell you the whereabouts of my friend if you comply with my demands.

>implying he could dodge my reapier

A fatal mistake on his part

>LIIIIIIES ARE THE GLUE THAT HOLDS SOCIETY TOGETHER!
>PEOPLE LIE ABOUT THEIR MILEAGE
>THEY LIE ABOUT THE WEATHER
>THEY LIE TO SPARE EACH OTHER'S FEELINGS
>THEY LIE TO STAY IN BED
>THEY LIE TO FEEL IMPORTANT ABOUT ALL THE BOOKS THAT THEY'VE "READ"!

You tell him you can't tell him where he is and shut the door in his face and call the cops.

make him smoke some of this extremely potent weed that i have, assemble a stoner circle, and have the three of us talk out our differences and concerns with me acting as the mediator

or just kill him lol

It feels a bit like Kant didn't think through his own philosophy. Like he could only think in extremely broad categories of action, only considering things conceptually and not in application.
like this user
I would lie to him with false directions and then send the authorities after him while he's distracted. Yes this meets the categorical imperative. If everyone acted according to the maxim "lie to axe murderers who want to murder your friend if it will prevent murder" works perfectly fine as a universal law for everyone to follow, if rather specific. Of course all this is predicated on the assumption that saving innocent human life from unlawful killing is moral in the first place. But quibbles over that kind of thing is why I started hating philosophers.
I'm no big a moral relativist, but the quest for this sort of complete universal applicable system that contains everything with no contradictions and functions perfectly in the real world is a fool's endeavor. Its an attempt to engineer the perfect society with perfect people, a utopian daydream.

Anyway Hayek was right about almost everything.

I shoot him, duh

>Almost 1776 digits

I'm a Nietzschean but since I dislike most people I know, I would still probably tell where they are hiding.

Attached: nietzsche vs kant.jpg (1840x1227, 153K)

Hayek was a mediocre philosopher, though, user.

His general ideas regarding economics may have deserved some merit, but I wouldn't call his ideas 'exceptional'. :3

Oh I wouldn’t say he was some kind of prodigal genius. Certain philosophers go down the path of making absolutist, totalitarian moral codes that make the practitioner *feel* good because they obeyed their little rulebook rather than a functional system that actual make a livable, free society. The perfect is the enemy of the good.
I prefer the ones that are more along the lines of “alright let’s not get carried away here”, and largely think it is best to leave people to their own devices. Not everything needs to be brought to it’s logical conclusion, it just has to work well enough.

Not sure if I’m even talking about Hayek anymore, but it does seem like the ideas I find most useful are from the philosophers who are also economists i.e. JS mill, Adam Smith. But again I think they take concepts too far in places. I wouldn’t say that I agree with all the things they said or that they had all the answers.

Hayek was a hack. The sum total of his "moral philosophy" boils down to "the rich should be able to do whatever they want unmolested by the state" just as it does for all the neoliberal stooges of the ruling class.

underrated

rest are pseuds

If you don’t say anything, then the murderer will presumably become suspicious and you risk him attempting to break in and kill your friend. However, if you can tell a convincing lie, your friend will 100% survive

Prevent any possible murder in the most efficient way possible.

Tell him to fuck off and that if he enters the property his life will be in danger.

>reformulate the question
An armed man with murderous intent comes to your house, demanding the whereabouts of a friend of yours. You know that your friend is currently tied to a railroad track together with 4 other people and in immediate danger of getting killed by an approaching trolley. As you think about how to answer, the man produces a switch from his pocket and explains that it can change the course of the very trolley headed to your friend's location. He offers to trade the switch for your friend's whereabouts. However, if the switch is used to redirect the trolley, it will then kill another person tied to another track. This singular person is also a friend of yours. Your second friend happens to be suicidal, which is why he actually tied himself to the track. However, he is also a world class doctor who is close to finding a cure for cancer.
What do you do?

Talk to him about jesus

I wouldn't mind lying to murderers with ill intent toward someone else turned into universal law

to hit him over his head and rape him in the ass

Ok...fuck, mister axe man...you got me...you got me. I know it is my duty as a friend to hide my comrade, but since you ask...to lie to you would be a sin...thus i must admit *hide my face with my palm in shame* h....he's in...he's in the basement my good sir, here, let me take you to him...but please...i beg you...make his death quick and painless...follow me sire. *take him to the basement door* he's in there, my lord *open door*
*kick him down the stairs*
*shut door and lock it*
AYOOOOO CHRISSY WOOOOORLDSTAR I GOT HIS ASS LOL I GOT HIM MY NIGGA! *my comrade rushes down the stairs from the attic where i was hiding him*
AYO YOU FUCKED UP NOW NIGGA AHAHAHAHAHA WHAT YOU GONNA DO NOW BITCH FUCK YO ASS PUNK YOU THINK YOU CAN FUCK WITH MY HOMIE AND IMMA JUST LET YOU SLICE HIM UP NIGGA FUCK THAT SHIT LMAAAAAAAAAAO SON HE ACTUALLY FELL FOR IT THE DUMB FUCK
*go outside*
*light match and throw it in the basement window* (i actually doused the entire floor in gasoline prior)
*me and my friend go for some pizza*
*FIN*

>If the pursuer of my friend asks me where he has fled to, I shall surely put him on a false trail. Why does he ask precisely me, the pursued man’s friend? In order not to be a false, traitorous friend, I prefer to be false to the enemy. I might certainly in courageous conscientiousness, answer, “I will not tell” (so Fichte decides the case); by that I should salve my love of truth and do for my friend as much as — nothing, for, if I do not mislead the enemy, he may accidentally take the right street, and my love of truth would have given up my friend as a prey, because it hindered me from the —courage for a lie. He who has in the truth an idol, a sacred thing, must humble himself before it, must not defy its demands, not resist courageously; in short, he must renounce the heroism of the lie. For to the lie belongs not less courage than to the truth: a courage that young men are most apt to be defective in, who would rather confess the truth and mount the scaffold for it than confound the enemy’s power by the impudence of a lie. To them the truth is “sacred,” and the sacred at all times demands blind reverence, submission, and self-sacrifice. If you are not impudent, not mockers of the sacred, you are tame and its servants. Let one but lay a grain of truth in the trap for you, you peck at it to a certainty, and the fool is caught. You will not lie? Well, then, fall as sacrifices to the truth and become — martyrs! Martyrs! — for what? For yourselves, for self-ownership? No, for your goddess — the truth.

Attached: download.png (225x225, 5K)

I don't have any friends

Checkmate atheists

This is a tough one

Kill him.

>preemptive killing should be universal law
"No"

Come to Texas, this is basically the law.

If it were made into a universal law to lie in such situations, no contradiction in reason would result. It is therefore moral to lie.
Also if you were to tell the truth, you would be treating your friend as a means to your misguided conception of the moral law, and not as an end, which is immoral.

not for long

Attached: 1544020279951.jpg (225x225, 7K)

Just redirect the train to that one track that has no people tied to do it but is close enough to my house that the the armed man and I can wave to the passengers.

Lol even the liberals in texas are conservatives when it comes to private property and gun rights. Have you been to the capital? It's a shit show. Have you read the bills they pass? Its a joke. This state may turn blue, but state law trumps city ordinances, and the way power is passed out in the gerrymandered as fuck state isn't going to change just because the cities finally out number the rural areas. We are fucked. It'll stay fucked.

I would lie in that circumstance and the universal law would only be applicable to that one instance because every action happens in relation and to the situation that is unique.

Attached: kantbot.jpg (730x486, 160K)

>An armed man with murderous intent comes to your house
call the police

I would suck his dick. It will confuse him and pleasure him, while giving my friend some time to slip. Everyone wins!

Childhood is worshipping random deontological rules.
Adulthood is realizing that consequentialism just makes more sense.

You burst into my house with murderous intent; it's not preemptive

I say fuck your circumstances. It is ridiculous to justify a categorical, universal imperative by contingent circumstances, as if this were an anglo utilitarian balancing game.

Attached: serveimage-4.jpg (220x222, 12K)

>I open the door
>he witnesses my ungodly, abominable, eldritch visage, staring naked to his face
>rendered speechless, all he can muster is that "hubbubbubbubbubbu" sound from revolution 9
>I direct all my ethereal rays onto him for a single millisecond, to have him melt and dissolve into nothingness and be incorporated into my formless body

Ageless enlightenment is to cultivate virtue and excellence in all aspects of life.

Here's what you do: Lie.

The correct answer is, as always, Jesuit casuistry. I can include secret non-verbal clauses in my statements that allow them to be true in essence but have the appearance and function of being useful lies. I can say: "My friend is not here" verbally, and then continue the sentence non-verbally in my mind "in this room."

Attached: mental reservation.jpg (480x360, 40K)

>would you still endorse it if the maxim behind your response was turned into universal law?
you mean the maxim of protecting people from being murdered? sure.

>this pope voluntarily gave up his position for an avowed jesuit
sure, like anyone would believe that. benedict xvi is the true pope and has been forcefully deposed

Tell him that the man he is looking for is in fact myself

i ask god on how to decide in this case, and the holy spirit will guide me.

Something can be moral without wanting it to become a universal law. I don't give a shit about your meta-axioms, nigger.

>casuistry
Sophistry more like

Attached: 1539144212654.png (1175x1022, 1.68M)

What if my best friend is Madara Uchiha?
And I'm referring to Rinne Tensei Madara Uchiha with the Eternal Mangekyou Sharingan and Rinnegan doujutsus (with the rikidou paths ability) equipped with his Gunbai and control of the juubi and Gedou Mazou, a complete Susano'o, with Hashirama Senju's DNA implanted in his chest so he can perform Mokuton kekkei genkai and yin-yang release ninjutsu as well as being extremely skilled in taijutsu and bukijutsu.