-->
@Theweakeredge
No, the maxim for the action must be universally applicable as a moral maxim.
Moral Subjectivism AMA
Posts
Total:
127
-->
@Sum1hugme
As in, the action must be good or true in all circumstances, in order for it to be considered good, again, this is absurd.
If not, in all circumstances, then what do you mean by universally applicable?
-->
@Theweakeredge
As in, the reason for the action must be applicable in all circumstances. You cannot derive categorical imperatives from any single example of an action, but instead the reason, applied universally.
-->
@Sum1hugme
In other words, you're saying that the reasoning must always be consistently valid in order for it to be a maxim? That isn't a ground breaking rule or law, that's what we actually call following the evidence. Also, circumstances will change reasonings, you will not be able to always apply the same consistent reasoning, sometimes a thing will be reasonably concluded while other times it is not.
Frankly I don't find the imperative itself interesting, but I find the implications drawn from it interesting:
For Kant the basis for a Theory of the Good lies in the intention or the will. Those acts are morally praiseworthy that are done out of a sense of duty rather than for the consequences that are expected, particularly the consequences to self. The only thing GOOD about the act is the WILL, the GOOD WILL. That will is to do our DUTY. What is our duty? It is our duty to act in such a manner that we would want everyone else to act in a similar manner in similar circumstances towards all other people.Kant expressed this as the Categorical Imperative.
-->
@Sum1hugme
Also, if you're looking into philosophically grounded morals or the concept in general, this pdf may prove indispensable.
-->
@Theweakeredge
You're close. The maxim must be non-contradictory when concieved as a universal moral law.
It's cool if it doesn't really interest you. I just finished his book "Groundwork of the metaphysic of ethics." So I figured Id ask your opinion here lol
-->
@Sum1hugme
Well I understand that, my problem is that things that could easily be argued as good would not fit that criteria, take killing in self defense. You could not always reach the conclusion that it was justified, even in very similar circumstances, therefore it would be disregarded as not good. Which isn't true in all cases.
Its not that it doesn't interest me, its that the implications interest me more. That the will, the intention, is what is being measured here.