>the categorical imperative

>>8370187
dumb animeposter

>>8370187
>morals are subjective

File: 1466885513830.gif (2MB, 540x304px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 540x304px

>>8370193
>>8370201
it's quite a coincidence that none of the posts shared on /r/4chan are from the anime/weeb boards, don't you think?

File: 1419805979090.jpg (279KB, 580x773px) Image search: [Google]

279KB, 580x773px

>>8370187

>see a lost doggo
>became conscious of a set a priori principles which indicate a proper form of my action
>help the doggo not because of empirical predetermination and causality which lead me there, but because of a willing act, to act freely on principles undetermined and free of any empirical conditioning
>maxim of my will on point with the universal principles
>act freely as a part of a intelligible order I'm part of, walking the poor dogo around the park
>eventually find the owner, and she thanks me, even though it's unnecessary because gratitude was never a defining condition of my will, but I accept politely because I'm not a faggot
>pleasant sensation of moral feeling invokes respect, being content I'm acting towards a better future and being the change I want to see, even though none of this determined my action but only the duty towards the idea of a form

feels good man, any other kantbro around enjoying the free life?

File: tips Christian morality.jpg (21KB, 474x528px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 474x528px

>>8370351

>help the doggo not because of empirical predetermination and causality which lead me there, but because of a willing act, to act freely on principles undetermined and free of any empirical conditioning

The word you're looking for is 'pity', slave.

File: 1429015725003.gif (1MB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 500x500px

>>8370365

Typical of Nicheposter to misinterpret everything.

>>8370351
The problem with the categorical imperative is when you try to nail down a specific situation. I was thinking about this when I was on the tube; if I pick my nose and wipe it on the seat, that would be an amoral action according to the imperative, because if everyone picked their noses and wiped them on the seats, no one would sit down on them, taking away the point of the seats in the first place. Am I correct?

But if I pick my nose and wipe it on the seat with the full knowledge that few others will do so, and that the seats will be cleaned anyway, it ceases to be amoral because no one loses anything, and I gain the pleasurable feeling of a clean nose.

>>8370443
I think you are correct on the first part, but second part is applicable to everything in a sense that even theft in a store would bypass the rule if you consider that their stock would be resupplied, or killing someone you want to kill during wartime because, well, circumstances I'm in will eventually allow me to get away with it. I think Kant specifically addresses this with his example on cheating on deposits or something in the Critique of Practical reason. I think he calls this questioning "facts of the mind", but I've really forgotten about it.

>>8370443
yeah you are correct I think, but thats just like putting philosophy against intuition. in your tube example your simple intuition is of course more correct than the strongest philosophical fAGGOT get me out of this cage nad i ve been doing just fine gotta gotta be yeh o noice