4 ms·
Your only argument against eating humans is pragmatism? So you'd be fine with it if you were guaranteed no repercussions?
by chimprich 3y ago
Your only argument against eating humans is pragmatism? So you'd be fine with it if you were guaranteed no repercussions?
- onethought 3y agoNo my argument is the definition of a moral imperative… Kant sort to solve moral questions using pure reason. Culminating in his famous categorical imperative, also known as the universality principle: “It is our duty to act in such a manner that we would want everyone else to act in a similar manner in similar circumstances towards all other people” You have some how confused this with pragmatism, and while Kant could be viewed as quite pragmatic, taken to its extreme, a pragmatic position would be: if you are hungry and human meat is available, then eat it.
- shepherdjerred 3y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative > Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.