kants categorical imperative says 'act only on that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law'. do unto others as you would have them do unto you type mumbo jumbo. One such maxim would be to never lie. don't lie to people as you'd not want them lying to you. A society in which everyone tells the truth is more desirable, both morally and practically than a society in which people lie, a second maxim. (As I mentioned earlier, we have to lie as everyone else lies. All to keep sane) Questie says that we should lie when we 'know' the outcome of our lie will benefit someone more than the truth. I (Kant) say that we can't know the truth as we are not fortunetellers. Questie says we should rely on probablities. I (Kant) says relying on probablities (in this case 60%) will yeild a contrary result (in this case 40%) more than once, and is thus insufficient. If you people haven't typed more, then you're caught up. We'll see in a minute though.
doesn't that mean we'd be ethically obligated to always tell the truth and understand that probabilities simply can not apply in matters of fortune?
I'm obviously not on intellectual par with the two of you and can't contribute anything of substance to this so I'll exit gracefully.
if I were a player hater I'd hate voltaire, his ass got lain his ass got lain by really attractive women, and droves of them, some of them who were amazing in their own right
Which is all good and fine, but the ethical lapses that you're willing to live with sink your proverbial boat. And that means Alex was on to something. And THAT means my wonderfully sharp display was dull. I beg you to rethink.
but you see, I don't entirely agree with kant, just because he said something was logical doesn't mean that it is, his morality doesn't dictate my own, result based morality is as stupid as doing anything else based entirely upon outcomes
I don't entirely agree with him either. But the fact of the matter remains that we can not refute what he says while he can refute what we say. 'I disagree' isn't an argument. Nothing to shame yourself over. There is a reason he is Kant and we are no one. Don't confuse perception with reality. His morality may very well dictate the justness of your own. Whether or not you agree. You've just adopted a major defense of Kantian deontology, never means to ends but ends in themselves, ... ironically.
okay, if I say that it was logical to bet on lockheed martin at the beginning of jsf because they won how is that logical? that's kant that's kant in a nutshell theorhetical probability is irelevant, but the outcome is that's bullshit it's fracking that shitty tom cruise movie all over again....
you've confused Kant with someone else. Theoretical probability is irrelevant and so is outcome, according to the man.
