Sum1hugme

Well the point is that if the maxim contradicts itself when applied universally, then it cannot be a moral imperative. Kant argues that a metaphysic of morals can only be found a priori, using reason alone. The only thing that can be good in all cases is the good will. So, the only actions that can be called morally good are those done because of a duty to the moral law, because otherwise the will is not good. Any reason other than duty to the moral law is done for material (sense) incentive, which is a posteriori rather than a priori, and therefore not being done In a good will, but rather a neutral, or evil will. Therefore the maxim is the only thing that matters when considering an action to be moral or immoral.

I'm not sure what you mean by statement of truth. I'm talking about moral imperatives for all people, derived from maxims of action, and tested against the premises of universality, and seeing rational beings as ends in themselves rather than mere means.

In the previous statement, the maxim I provided, I believe would be non-contradictory if applied to these tests.

Ad populum Is the fallacy of saying that something is true because everyone else believes it. I'm stating that the maxim must be able to apply universally without contradicting itself. "Helping your friends is good" or "always help your friends", when applied universally, leads to contradictory outcomes, like one where a friend is not physically able to help and ends up causing more harm than good thus causing the contradiction to the maxim. So a more complete maxim that could be applied more universally would be "always help your friends when it is within your power." In this way, Steve's maxim could not apply universally, and thus could not be a categorical imperative.

Yeah I think about the past but I don't live there

I figure being dead is going to be a lot like before I was born

Thank you for your valued contribution

Look, I am not an anarchist, I was just putting up the strongest argument. If government is indeed predicated on the monopolization of force, then premise 3 concludes logically from premise 1

The state's existence is predicated on the monopolization of force

I'm not saying law doesn't protect property, but the state has historucally established it's sovereignty via force

Their law is imposed. So by appealing to their law, you are rationalizing away the point by appealing to authority. 

See #4

I'm just asking if everything that exists can be reduced down to a physical system.

"a physical system is any object or part of an object that can be analysed with the laws of physics."

What would you like me to clarify?

this is great

Keep doing this

so you would say, "yes it is reasonable to assume the trend will continue."?

The moral value of Steve's actions in that example are determined by the universality of his maxim for his action. So what would be his maxim In this case?

What do you think about Kant's categorical imperative?

Didn't realize when I wrote this, but now I know that superdeterministic theories are actually fundamental theories from which quantum mechanics derives.

"What do you mean"

Wym

Why or why not? 

I don't really get mine, but those are pretty spot on

These were pretty funny

Project Zomboid - 471 hrs.

Modded Fallout 4 - 452 hrs.

Total War Rome II - 281 hrs.

Yeah, i came here after my arguments wouldn't post and just get deleted. I just randomly saw a link to this website in the comments of a debate somewhere on DDO.

My bad I haven't read through the thread

From where do you derive your ethical theory

  It's my understanding that gravity is the result of mass bending the geometry of spacetime. So ghost hands is fundamentally an unscientific idea bc it's untestable, unfalsifiable, and pales in comparison as an explanation of "why things fall" than the theory of gravity.

Just curious, is this stemming from fauxlaw and undefeatable's debate?

Yeah, I believe we have natural rights to autonomy. But do you dispute that taxation is the same as laying claim to a person's labor? 

I don't think it's an assumption that taxation is the same as laying claim to the product of a person's labor

I think the argument is that taxation is the same as laying claim to the product of your labor. Which is the same as forced labor. And forced labor is morally equivalent to slavery

What do you think about this line of reasoning

Taxation is morally equivalent to forced labor.

Therefore taxation is morally equivalent to slavery

"Welcome to the bizarre land of conspiracy theories. Up is down, logic is illogical, intelligent people are blind sheep, and experts are government disinformation agents. The government always lies, and so do scientists, doctors, and anyone who disagrees with a conspiracy theory on an internet forum. In fact, pretty much everyone is lying except for that one guy on YouTube who's trying to sell his book filled with bombshells and proof and is totally not just trying to make a quick buck off of gullible people who are desperate to believe that they're really skeptical critical thinkers."

-Siranonymous

I'm not sure what you mean by middle ground, so I can't answer that exactly. 

I have played a few sports in my time, and really it boils down to practicing fundamental techniques and improving relevant athleticism for greater technical efficiency.

But there is some martial arts specific conditioning that isn't necessarily athletic. Shin conditioning by thai fighters is a good example. Kicking a hard bony part of a person like the knee hurts, so fighters will condition their bones to be harder and their nerves to be deadened so that when they throw a low kick and it gets checked, it doesn't feel like they just broke their shin bone.

Also, some people are so strong that they can apply it less effircently than an opponent with textbook technique and still be successful.

To quite Gordon Ryan, "Lifting is the most important thing for jiu-jitsu. The second most important is being good at jiu-jitsu."

Yeah, fighting has an insurmountable amount of variables to be able to say that one technique will always work as a counter to another. So we have to talk in terms of percentages. Also, some people don't have the baseline athleticism to pull off certain techniques. 

One example is an escape from the thai clinch that is literally putting your hands in the opponents armpits and deadlifting them up and pushing them away. Without the certain baseline strength, it's not a technique that will work.

Yeah, and going by the same "three main aspects of fighting model," a person with lower levels of technique and athleticism can win fights through sheer aggression alone.

  Also, consider the essence of stand up fighting alone. Muay thai is the most complete stand up art, and it is fundamentally a game of extremely high speed, high risk, rock-paper-scissors. Only it's knee-elbow-highkick-lowkick-stright punch-etc. And many things counter many things.

Three drunk men went to town one day.

When a buggy and horse approached, 

"Get out of the way" came a yell from the coach.

And two of them jumped away.

The third one froze and rightly so, 

he knew and know he knows.

That that horse and buggy that was riding by

was in the lane with the other guys.

And the two men laughed like fools

unaware of the mistake they made.

But then they were trampled by the hooves,

and the third man got away.

-well if you ask him, that's what he'll say

I just start throwing insults into my arguments to rile them up like, "point A is because of this reason, anyone with half a brain would know that."

Although honestly, that's really more a a remnant from my early time debating

Defining god as "the ultimate reality" doesn't make him real. I can define Ghrevana, a god I just made up as "the ultimate, self evident reality." And that's equally unconvincing that Ghrevana exists