The Kantpill

Do to others what you want them to do to you.

Time to rape then

Kant was literally five foot fucking zero so I'm not going to listen to some turbomanlets philosophy

Buy them guns, then let them have a nice little nap over some train tracks?

Golden rule is a strong simplification of the categorical imperative.
Maybe you should read his works before talking about Kant, cunt.

The Warpill:
Do unto the other before he does unto you

>Masochists should torment other people

Sadly this would directly violate the NAP, thus making Kant a perfect pin-cushion for my bayonet.

>a mouthbreathing retard thinks he knows shit about Kant's philosophy

Categorical imperative: In everything that you do, imagine if everyone else did the same.

E.g. You murder someone for their money ==> Everyone murders people for their money. Soon, there will be no one left, as everyone has murdered someone else.

The "Golden Rule" of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, is basically another form of the categorical imperative. If you don't people to murder you for your money, then you need to not murder others for their money; the Golden Rule.

Looks like you're the cunt :)

>huemonkey thinks he knows shit
These:, are perfect examples for why he wrote "Act in accordance to to what you think should be universal law"
and not just "Do to others what you want them to do to you."
That was Jesus.

>Act in accordance to to what you think should be universal law

That's the neokantian interpretation of his work.

>third world monkeys telling an educated German how to read Kant

You're a retard if you think that's what Kant meant in the Categorical Imperative. It doesn't depend at all on what you happen to want.

Kant's the best, but fucking pinko autists like you give him a back name.

>falling for the comical niaiserie allemande

Yeah Kant didn't think what OP is saying. Kant's second formulation of the categorical imperative is to always treat humanity (which is purposiveness/rational self-determination) as an end in itself and never as a mere means. He thinks this is equivalent to the other formulations of the Categorical Imperative.

OP is a retard. Kant's moral theory doesn't demand on what people happen to want at all.

If I'm ever tried for a crime, I would want the judge to let me go. If the judge were the find himself in a similar position to mine, he would also want to avoid punishment. Therefore, the judge should let me go free in order to remain consistent with treating others the way he would want to be treated.

>Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.

E.g, only things that allow you to act, but at the same time doesn't cause contradictions between your actions and others, is a categorical imperative.

The liberal dictum: "Your freedom to swing your fist ends just where my nose begins" is a pretty good example.

Categorical imperative is more like formal law and is not direcly applicable to everyday life. Dont be a retard. He meant by it that there is just some things inherent to us. Best way to apply CI is, for example, to lying, as it would render whole language per se useless.
Kant is not a liveable philosopher, he just put groundworks for nice law and juidical philosophy compromising free will (humans) with determinism(nature).

>following Kant
>when superior Aristotelian philosophy exists

Teleology > Deontology

>gay pedo

Fuck off Milo

No it's pretty much verbatim

This explains a lot.

What the fuck?

What a convoluted misunderstanding

What if im a masochist who phantasizes about being cannibalized by another person?
Does that mean i can go around murdering people and eat them?

he didn't even left his city ever

and it's not like shitposting has been invented yet

...

I know I just wanted to laugh at OP.
I still think that Kant was full of shit on that matter, though. You can act according to what you think should be the universal law and not treat others as the means to an end but there's no guarantee that they'll act according to what should be the universal law and not treat you like the means to an end so you are very likely to get cucked if you follow this philosophy. Pic semi-related.

>You can act according to what you think should be the universal law and not treat others as the means to an end but there's no guarantee that they'll act according to what should be the universal law and not treat you like the means to an end so you are very likely to get cucked if you follow this philosophy.

Which is true for any morality, and is the reason we have the word "conflict".

No, OP is a retard who misunderstands Kant. Kant doesn't think that you should treat others how you want to be treated - that would leave the moral law up to empirically contingent variables (what you want can change and vary from person to person). Kant thinks that you have to act in a way which is consistent with the pure form of practical reason, which means looking only at the form (not the material ends chosen) of an action.

In the second formulation of the Categorical Imperative (which Kant says is equivalent to the other two), Kant claims that this boils down to treating humanity (which is basically a capacity of a person to determine himself in accordance with a practical principle of reason) as an end and never as a mere means. This just boils down to respecting peoples' independence (right to freedom) and not allowing yourself to become a doormat/slave.

>I still think that Kant was full of shit on that matter, though. You can act according to what you think should be the universal law and not treat others as the means to an end but there's no guarantee that they'll act according to what should be the universal law and not treat you like the means to an end so you are very likely to get cucked if you follow this philosophy

How do you get cucked? If other people don't respect you, you're entitled to fuck them over because Kantianism is based on reciprocity.

>because Kantianism is based on reciprocity.

I mean, Kant says that your obligation to respect other peoples' acquired rights (property, contract, etc.) depend on your also being guaranteed respect, which is only possible under a civil state that coercively guarantees rights. Right is only possible in a political condition for Kant.

If that was the case it would mean that you'd only be able to act in retaliation which would put you in disatvantage.

Actually OP is spot on.

As says, Kant said people should "act in accordance to to what they think should be universal law".

If I think being kind to people should be the universal law, I want to be treated kindly. Therefore I should treat others kindly.

Why do Brazillians like Kant so much, is it because you still believe in God?

this manlet meme is cringy as fuck.

1. Kant thinks that you're entitled to use preemptive force against threats. He says this is true of states, justifying preemptive wars and wars to maintain a balance of power

2. Kant thinks that you can use coercion to force people into a civil condition where the state secures your rights, so I'm not sure what sort of circumstances where this bizarre game theory is relevant.

3. Kant also thinks that you aren't legally culpable in cases where the law would in principle not be able to serve as a deterrent (e.g. if you kill someone when you would otherwise die, you are morally blameworthy, but the law can't punish you).

t. Manlet

Can you even reach the top shelf?

Nope. But you are a comedic genius.

>getting one of the maxims so fucking wrong

It's not subjective. It's universal.

It's because he is the last good philosopher.

>inb4 le edgy moustache man

No, you need to get your head out of your ass and read the Groundwork, or some worthwhile commentaries on Kant. I'd recommend Ripstein, Guyer, Wood, Murphy, and can give others.

The universal law is not just whim that you can want people to obey. The universal law for Kant is supposed to be discernible a priori, which means by reference only to the pure form of practical reason. You act according to what can be universally willed without contradiction because that is the only way to be consistent with the demands of rationality.

You might think that everyone ought to enjoy classical music and listen to it once a day, but that doesn't mean that you have to think that other people are acting immorally when they listen to rock music instead. This "Golden Rule" interpretation is something Kant specifically denounces, and which no commentator takes seriously. So eat a dick.

... what? Kantian metaphysics ends in agnosticism. His moral argument for belief in God is almost universally rejected by contemporary Kantians, and Kant even said that it only justifies acting as though God exists, not actually believing that He does exist.

>So eat a dick.

Nice """argument""".

>>inb4 le edgy moustache man

Get on my level son

Nice (((reply)))

No, you're definitely the cunt here.

You seem pretty well versed on this Kant guy.

Are you a philosophy major?

>without contradiction

So, has nothing to do with reality.

Autistic nonsense in other words.

>metaphysically implying metaphysics are noice

seriously tho, Kant is pretty nice, but if you want to beat the a priori bullshit no-one is better than the man with the hammer.

> tfw you understand a priori arguments
> but there is no solid a priori knowledge

Yeah, philosophy and German, specializing in Kant.

You are a disgrace to your fatherland.

You're definitely retarded.