>he fell for the categorical imperative meme
>>8198624
>he fell for the virtue ethics meme
>he fell for the ethics meme
>he fell for the analytical philosophy meme
>>8198624
>he fell for the morality meme
>>8198624
>he fell
>>8198852
Meine lieblings sofern.
>>8198624
is this a meme thread or do you actually not buy the categorical imperative?
like kant, i dont know that morality does exist, but sure if it does then the categorical imperative is correct.
>>8198911
Maybe not 'correct', but certainly 'the foundational principle of any possible system of morals'.
Yes this is a meemee dread
>>8198624
>he
>>8198911
>like kant, i dont know that morality does exist, but sure if it does then the categorical imperative is correct.
It's a rehash of the Golden Rule.
GBS rebuked it best:
>Do not do unto others as you would expect they should do unto you. Their tastes may not be the same.
>>8199040
well, not really the golden rule. though of course it is similar.
kant would have rejected "do X to Y if you want Y to do X to you" as a hypothetical imperative, precisely because of the reasons that GBS describes. if the antecedent changes, then so does the consequenent.
categorical imperatives do not have the form "do A if B", but rather the form "do A". hence they are CATEGORICAL not HYPOTHETICAL.
there is a reason kants book is called Groundowork for the Metaphysics of Morals. kantian metaphysics directly implies his morality. surely if morality exists noumenally and noumenally all rational agents are the same then any imperative for one agent must be the same for all of them.
interpreted semantically.
this is the first form:
For all x and A ( (x ought to do A) implies ( for all y ( y ought to do A ) ) )
or in english, only act on those maxims that can be universalised. if universalisation makes your action impossible (eg lying, stealing) or you would not want the universalisation (eg adultury) then you maxim cannot be moral.
its trivial to dervie the second formulation (treat people as ends not means) and the third formulation (hypothetical consent) from the first.
its a very logically coherent system. certainly not the golden rule. though without kantian metaphysics one could easily confuse the two.
>>8198852