"Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same

Sort of. If by "right for all" you mean, "right were everyone to do the same action in the same situation," then yeah.

>>8640402
>right were everyone to do the same action in the same situation

Is this the nature of universal law?

>>8640388
Nope.
Act only if you wish everyone would act the same way.

>>8640406
Yeah, this combined with his other CI, act as if you were the ruler in the kingdom of ends.

>>8640388
For example: Don't ever lie because if everyone else where to lie all the time then society wouldn't function. Similarly don't ever cheat on your sexual partner because you would like it if they were also cheating on you.

>>8640412
>>8640413

Guess I'll have to read further, because I'm assuming he takes an objective position of universal law. By saying "Act as if you're the Ruler of the Kingdom of ends" or "Act only if you wish everyone acts the same way" this can preside over numerous different ways of acting. There must be a single true universal law from Kants point of view.

>>8640427
>Similarly don't ever cheat on your sexual partner because you would like it if they were also cheating on you.

cuqqqqqqqqqqqqq

File: Claes.full.214582.jpg (277KB, 674x600px) Image search: [Google]

277KB, 674x600px

>>8640388
Jesus no you shitter, he's saying that you should do what you truly believe is the best thing to do.
A lot of retards are stuck in this limbo where they subject their thoughts to their perceptions of everybody else's perceptions.
For instance "I should do X, " followed by "But X may not be perceived as good by others."
By doing this you are being reactionary and mimetic in your thinking, always giving condition, always limiting yourself and your thoughts.
Rather you should hearken to your own perception as absolute because for all intents and purposes your perception is the only perception, and any attempts to obtain another perception besides your own makes a fiat out of you and makes you stupid and shallow etc.

>>8641663
There has never been a post on this board that has been more hilariously wrong.

The phrase means exactly what it states. If you perform an action, and you could not morally will it to be performed in the same manner by all other people, your actions are logically and ethically inconsistent. For example, if you owned a shop, and one day you decided you wanted to steal an item from somebody else on a whim, unless you would be ok with everybody stealing something from you as well, you are not acting by Kant's faggy golden rule. The reason his maxim is stupid as fuck is that he completely neglects both the presence of human egoism as well as how libidinal desires supersede logic, even in the most nobleminded acolytes of 'the good'

>>8641663
>hay guise listen to me im so rite

so you decided you feel entitled to interpret kant's categorical imperative without reading a single word from Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, and instead project your own 'just b urself dood' cuck definition, potentially fucking up someone else's impression entirely? God damnit, these are the dumb fucks who browse /lit/

>>8640388
The categorical imperative is not really based on altruism, but more in terms of acting in a way by which you would be cool with everyone else doing the exact same thing. Like, you probably don't want people to lie to or deceive you, so you shouldn't do it to anyone else, otherwise you'd be a hypocrite and can't rationally impose your moral code onto others.

File: chris evans.jpg (178KB, 491x713px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 491x713px

>>8641663
Omg, fucking wrong.

>>8641704
Pls, I know that, I was explaining the dynamic behind it.
I don't even like the guy.

>>8641708
Pls, maybe you should re-read your kant, this time pay attention.

>>8641743
except your 'explanation' of the 'dynamic' is complete fabrication, you literally just made it up. You could not be more wrong, so please stop misleading other posters on this board by posting your lazy neet-impressions with pictures of weaboo trash. /v/ crossposters are not welcome here

>>8641663
>my perception is absolute truth fuck bothering to get a rough idea of the perception of others
that is literally the way autistic people, ISIS and neo-nazis think. you are cancer pls kys.

>>8641750
I think it's enough to call him wrong and stupid, comparing him to ISIS will only inflate his edgy 15 year-old temperament and make him smirk behind his wire-framed glasses, greasy black hair and prurient acne

>>8641749
Okay mr smarty pants then explain to me why there's ethical inconsistency when you don't follow the imperative?

>>8641769
I already have briefly in a couple of posts in this thread. When you purport your needs, desires and whims to supersede those of another person, you enter into a domain of relativism in which every person may do the same to varying degrees at their own convenience, and the idea of 'right and wrong' bears no wide-reaching substance because it has become arbitrary and subjective depending on the inclinations of the moral agent. The imperative is basically an ethical egalitarian law derived from logic, and when one 'breaks the rules' by doing something that places them in a domain of ethical privilege, it no longer works as a generalized imperative

>>8641663
THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU IMAGINE PRACTICAL AND THEORETICAL REASON AS UNCOMMUNICATINGLY DISTINCT !

Kant's corpse cries a thousand tears!

File: 2037033.jpg (473KB, 645x911px) Image search: [Google]

473KB, 645x911px

>>8641801
Yeah I do know that but for some reason the categorical imperative has always overlapped with the is-ought problem for me, so I read between the lines a tad much.
>>8641750 Valid criticism really.
I always read it like this: "Act only on that particular prerogative through which you can at the same time assent to it in the universal."
Like for instance, the fact that you will something to become a universal law is an ethical prerogative, but the action you are taking ('action' could also mean to assert something) is concerned with particulars, so there must be some internal coupling which joins the two or bridges the gap so to speak, I don't know.
Never been to /v/ though. Have some more weaboo trash.