I live my life according to Kant's moral principles

[Anonymous No.11684536]

"Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law."

Name ONE better system of ethics to arrange your life around.

[Anonymous No.11684538]

>>11684536
I unironically agree and do my best to live according to the same.

[Anonymous No.11684542]

Average Kantian
>Studies/works with great rigor and discipline
>Goes working out regularly
>Eats proper meals and takes care of his health
>Abstains from sex until marrige but could get it easily if he wanted
>Plenty of friends who views him as a reliable companion and dear friend
>Sleeps properly and strives for further self improvement

Average Ni*etszchean
>Unreliable
>Lazy
>Unhealthy
>No friends
>Doesn't do legs in the gym
>Only friends is some edgy dude he meet in school

[Anonymous No.11684558]

In fairness's sake, I should begin by saying that utilitarianism has many things going for it. Seeking the greatest amount of good to the greatest number of people is a good base for a way of living, and often the Kantian way can feel constrained and rigid, that if only you killed this one person things would work out so much better for everyone. It's not like you'd need to keep on killing afterwards.

But I think that rigidity, and the ensuing simplicity, are in fact why Kant's principles shine through in the end. Utilitarianism gets messy as soon as two people disagree on what is the best course of action for best benefits - what if someone decides that you must die for the greater good? Would it not be better if no one died at all?

If everyone in the world followed Kantian principles, we would almost adsuredly be better off than if we were all utilitarians.

Other systems of morality do not even play in the same ballpark.

[Anonymous No.11684570]

>>11684536
Kant is underrated desu.

Not treating people as means to different ends, but ends in themselves really boggles the monkey brain.

[Anonymous No.11684575]

It's a shitty and spooky system of ethics because there is no compelling reason for the individual to follow it.

[Anonymous No.11684579]

Categorical imperative is a shit system that can be used to legitimise the most disparate moral principles.

[Anonymous No.11684583]

>>11684542
DELET

[Anonymous No.11684588]

>>11684575
>>11684579
>system
I guarantee you lot haven't read Kant first-hand

[Anonymous No.11684592]

>>11684588
>arguing semantics
call it what you want, it's an old and debunked meme

[Anonymous No.11684613]

>>11684538
samesies!! good job guys

(although, there are a lot of flaws with the system. EG: a hedonist might see sexual assault as a permissible universal law; or a sadist might see punching people in the face as an acceptable universal law.. Obvi this is exaggerated but it's just to give examples)

[Anonymous No.11684626]

>>11684575
>It's a shitty and spooky system of ethics because there is no compelling reason for the individual to follow it.
This is dumb, it can describe any systems of ethics

>>11684588
actually, it's just to maintain consistency in the thread, since OP used the phrase system of ethics. You're a pseud for assuming that much about a persons intellect based on a 4chan comment, and for not seeing why they used it.

[Anonymous No.11684653]

>>11684575
When will stirner posters learn the difference between psychology and philosophy and the fact that they pressume a hedonistic perspective implicitly. Also google the is ought gap and the open question argument.

[Anonymous No.11684667]

>>11684542
Actual Ni*etszchean
>Studies/works with great rigor and discipline
>Goes working out regularly
>Eats proper meals and takes care of his health
>Abstains from sex until marrige but could get it easily if he wanted
>Plenty of friends who views him as a reliable companion and dear friend
>Sleeps properly and strives for further self improvement

[Anonymous No.11684696]

>>11684536
I agree.

[Anonymous No.11684814]

>>11684542
Based.

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11684828]

But what I want for myself is not what I want for others, generally.

[Anonymous No.11684838]

>>11684828
Name the trait that differentates you from other people.
Saying that you are yourself doesn't count as that is not a factual statement, just a perspective.

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11684871]

>>11684838
I'm me, they're not.

Not exactly a challenging request.

[Anonymous No.11684873]

>>11684871
Well, I'm me, and you're not.

So I think I'll kill you and take your stuff.

[Anonymous No.11684878]

>>11684871
I premptively answered you in my second sentence.

[Anonymous No.11684894]

>>11684828

[Anonymous No.11684909]

>>11684873
That’s an evil mentality.

His mentality isn’t inherently evil. There’s the difference. If he thinks he deserves better things than you, maybe he does

[Anonymous No.11684912]

>>11684909
>If he thinks he deserves better things than you, maybe he does
Yeah, but I think I deserve better things than he too, so maybe I do?

[Anonymous No.11684915]

>>11684912
Let me stop you there. No you don’t

[Anonymous No.11684920]

>>11684915
>>11684912
>but I think I deserve better things than he too

Let me clarify. I don’t think that you actually think this, genuinely

[Anonymous No.11684925]

How about working to actualise an abstract sphere of right in which freedom can be exercised arbitratily for all men, fella?

[Anonymous No.11684937]

>>11684925
Why? Why would anyone ever do that?

Also, just so we’re clear, the natural world has a lot of built in restrictions, like scarcity of resources and wealth consolidation, that don’t just go away with the bat of an eye.

I put my faith in God. I love and believe in God. I think he causes me to go forward. I think he causes those who have faith in him to go forward, but the less they ‘participate in the one’ as Proclus would put it, the less they are perfected.

This is a metaphysical principle

[Anonymous No.11684939]

>>11684920
I do not, no. I'm just using the same way of thinking to challenge his beliefs. What makes him think he deserves better things than me? And what if it turns out that I would actually deserve better? What would he think of his world view then?

[Anonymous No.11684949]

>>11684939
I’m just saying, he’s the one who thought to bring it up. If he is the first to bring it up, chances are if he doesn’t do this often, then he actually does deserve better than you.

If he brings it up often, or after someone’s already brought it up, logic and thought dictates he probably doesn’t deserve it. You fall into the second category, if not the first

[Anonymous No.11684959]

>>11684949
Where does the limit go? When does he do it too often? In what sort of situations would he be allowed to have better things than other people, and at what point will he cross the line where he does not deserve it anymore? And once he does not deserve it, what will happen then?

[Anonymous No.11684967]

>>11684959
These sorts of questions cannot be answered over this medium. You tell me where the line is. Those things have to be taken into consideration.

This is an anonymous forum after all, whether you use a tripcode or not I still don’t know who you are, so I can’t make a judgment or anything

[Anonymous No.11684969]

>>11684542