3 ms·
> just one btw You're right, yes, I should have gathered that from both the name and the use of that maxim, which is clearly singular. > it has nothing to do
by MaxBarraclough 2y ago
> just one btw
You're right, yes, I should have gathered that from both the name and the use of that maxim, which is clearly singular.
> it has nothing to do with moral, law or truth
That's not right, it's talking about morality.
> it covers all edge cases but it won't work because they can't build that many Porsches
I'm not sure what you mean here.
I don't see a serious refutation of my main point. Every moral decision is unique in at least some detail, and trying to cover all edge-cases in a rules-based morality is a losing battle.
From a quick look at Wikipedia [0] it seems Kant's categorical imperative falls at the first hurdle - he asserted that lying, or deception of any kind, would be forbidden under any interpretation and in any circumstance. Absurd.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative#Deception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative#Decepti...
- mediumsmart 2y agoMoral can only be singular too if it exists, so what choice can there be? > That's not right, it's talking about morality. Not quite right then - 2 out of 3 aint bad >I'm not sure what you mean here. it is something of a hunch that categorically noone is going to have a porsche or everyone. I will rephrase that maybe. >Every moral decision is unique in at least some detail, Which detail? how does it matter what kind of food you give a hungry person? >rules-based morality is a losing battle Now were talking - you want something that will work with real humans while I am admiring the concept. >he asserted that lying, or deception of any kind, would be forbidden under any interpretation and in any circumstance. Absurd. exactly - the absurd is the essential concept and the first truth