/lit/ - Literature

>>11455527
>be me
>Oh Stacy, you clearly didn't even read the essay I wrote for you! It's okay, I'm sure you had better things to do like hang out with Chad. For the categorical imperative states "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law." However, what is the maxim by which you're acting now? It would be something along the lines of "Use the abilities of others without providing any sort of compensation?" Now Stacy, can you truly will that this maxim become universal? For to do so would make no sense from a game-theoretic perspective, as a world of universal cooperation is strictly better than a world of universal defection. How can we ever have perpetual peace with your focus on particular preferences instead of the universal moral law?

>be Stacy
>Oh but Anon! Clearly you spent too much time texting me while I was getting drinks with Thad and Brad, and not enough time reading Kant's short work "An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?" For in that work, Kant writes that "Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one's own understanding without the guidance of another." But you simply quote mine various philosophers without attempting to evaluate your own ethical beliefs! If you'd read Kant's "On a Supposed Right to Lie Because of Philanthropy," you'd know that he believed that "Truthfulness in statements...is the formal duty of man to everyone, however great the disadvantage that may arise therefrom to him or for any other." Do you really believe that? Is that why you give me the answers to all the exams, even though you've almost been caught at least 5 times? That's pretty sad Anon. Also, your game-theoretic analysis is rather bad, since unilateral defection is the rational strategy against an opponent who always cooperates and has no capacity to retaliate. And I'm the only girl who even talks to you...so can you please do my stat homework?