i thought that under the catergorical imperative if you murdered
you'd just be saying it was ok for you to be executed as well.
(Tom OBedlamI have control of a tank,
Sat 29 Mar 2008, 22:40,
archived)
That's only one way he puts it.
You should be able to reasonably will the maxim of your act to be universal law. According to Kant, this is the same thing as saying that humans are not to be treated as a pure means, but always primarily as an end.
You cannot reasonably want murder to be universal law, for obvious reasons.
i've only come across this as part of a paper on the Death Penalty, you see. I'm more of Mill fan when it comes to ethics.
reading a damn good Mill biography ashally. I highly recommend it. s'called J.S. Mill - Victorian Firebrand
(Tom OBedlamI have control of a tank,
Sat 29 Mar 2008, 22:50,
archived)
"The Germans are disputing it.
Hegel is arguing that the reality is merely an a priori adjunct of non-naturalistic ethics, Kant via the categorical imperative is holding that ontologically it exists only in the imagination, and Marx is claiming it was offside."
(JeruWar and Piss,
Sat 29 Mar 2008, 22:51,
archived)
Is that me?
(DixipoosBye Bye Blackbird,
Sat 29 Mar 2008, 23:00,
archived)
If he shot a man in Reno
why didn't they send him to a Nevada state prison instead of Folsom (in California?)