• commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    if you’ve decided that a certain course of action should be universal law, then complying with that law is moral. The categorical imperative is incredibly simple to apply

    • Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Look, I’m not even getting into the fundamental problems with the insane, subjective, and ad-hoc way the moral imperative is supposed to work; I’m pointing out that you’re performing apologetics. I don’t need to get into the weeds of how it works, because your argument is fallacious.

      If you decide that it’s wrong to allow an infant to starve, but that poisoning a child is wrong, how can you be 100% certain that what you are about to feed it isn’t poison? You can’t know that it’s moral to feed the child what you are about to feed it. The absolute certainty you claim is either a useless technicality or an outright fiction.

      • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        I’m not even getting into the fundamental problems with the insane, subjective, and ad-hoc way the moral imperative is supposed to work

        this is handwaving. i believe the kids today call it “cope”

      • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        If you decide that it’s wrong to allow an infant to starve, but that poisoning a child is wrong, how can you be 100% certain that what you are about to feed it isn’t poison? You can’t know that it’s moral to feed the child what you are about to feed it.

        it doesn’t matter. if i don’t believe it’s poison, then feeding it to the child is the right thing to do. done-and-dusted.