Every ethical system requires knowledge of the world.
Knowledge of the world includes knowledge of the probability of future world states.
Future world states are subject to doubt.
Present world states are also subject to doubt.
There is no fundamental difference between the degrees of uncertainty about present and future events.
We can know with a high degree of certainty that without intervention, the sun will be destroyed. I can know with a high degree of certainty that your arguments come from a mind that is not part of a mind that I am part of. I can know with a high degree of certainty that the place I am currently located will not be subject to an event that will destroy me.
Privileging the certainty of nearer-term events is fallacious. It is true that any particular chosen event becomes more probable as its proximity to us increases, because there are fewer ways to avert it, but that does not mean all further-future events are less probable than all nearer-future events.
Are you claiming that in a particular physically real situation, the categorical imperative can can tell you the correct course of action with 100% certainty? If so, please explain how that’s possible when your personal certainty of the situation is (necessarily) less than 100%.
if you’ve decided that a certain course of action should be universal law, then complying with that law is moral. The categorical imperative is incredibly simple to apply
Look, I’m not even getting into the fundamental problems with the insane, subjective, and ad-hoc way the moral imperative is supposed to work; I’m pointing out that you’re performing apologetics. I don’t need to get into the weeds of how it works, because your argument is fallacious.
If you decide that it’s wrong to allow an infant to starve, but that poisoning a child is wrong, how can you be 100% certain that what you are about to feed it isn’t poison? You can’t know that it’s moral to feed the child what you are about to feed it. The absolute certainty you claim is either a useless technicality or an outright fiction.
If you decide that it’s wrong to allow an infant to starve, but that poisoning a child is wrong, how can you be 100% certain that what you are about to feed it isn’t poison? You can’t know that it’s moral to feed the child what you are about to feed it.
it doesn’t matter. if i don’t believe it’s poison, then feeding it to the child is the right thing to do. done-and-dusted.
even knowing how to act requires knowledge of the future in such a paradigm.
Every ethical system requires knowledge of the world.
Knowledge of the world includes knowledge of the probability of future world states.
Future world states are subject to doubt.
Present world states are also subject to doubt.
There is no fundamental difference between the degrees of uncertainty about present and future events.
We can know with a high degree of certainty that without intervention, the sun will be destroyed. I can know with a high degree of certainty that your arguments come from a mind that is not part of a mind that I am part of. I can know with a high degree of certainty that the place I am currently located will not be subject to an event that will destroy me.
Privileging the certainty of nearer-term events is fallacious. It is true that any particular chosen event becomes more probable as its proximity to us increases, because there are fewer ways to avert it, but that does not mean all further-future events are less probable than all nearer-future events.
probability is never 100%, but the categorical imperative is always 100% certain.
Are you claiming that in a particular physically real situation, the categorical imperative can can tell you the correct course of action with 100% certainty? If so, please explain how that’s possible when your personal certainty of the situation is (necessarily) less than 100%.
if you’ve decided that a certain course of action should be universal law, then complying with that law is moral. The categorical imperative is incredibly simple to apply
Look, I’m not even getting into the fundamental problems with the insane, subjective, and ad-hoc way the moral imperative is supposed to work; I’m pointing out that you’re performing apologetics. I don’t need to get into the weeds of how it works, because your argument is fallacious.
If you decide that it’s wrong to allow an infant to starve, but that poisoning a child is wrong, how can you be 100% certain that what you are about to feed it isn’t poison? You can’t know that it’s moral to feed the child what you are about to feed it. The absolute certainty you claim is either a useless technicality or an outright fiction.
it doesn’t matter. if i don’t believe it’s poison, then feeding it to the child is the right thing to do. done-and-dusted.
this is handwaving. i believe the kids today call it “cope”