Magic: Who thinks they can do it, and why otherwise intelligent people buy it.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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

Do you agree with him?

So, what does Kant have to say about negligent homocide?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

People have done it before.  Kant has an interesting system.  Just because I'm not convinced by it doesn't mean it isn't right, and just because I haven't done it doesn't mean it can't be done. I'm not really sure about what you mean by unworkable.  Please clarify.

If Kant had it right, then you'd just have to read him and you'd be done.

Well I'm not discounting the possibility that I could be wrong.

If it's objective, it should be testable, yes?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

A reminder that language and expression is already one step removed from your true identity (your mind) and that adding stupid names and rituals to get an effect is adding another redundant layer.

When I want to feel something I narrate it "and so I felt a melancholy" or "and so my mind entered a state of intense focus and concentration".
If you need to call that magic or attach redundant ritualistic fluff to that, I pity you.

This is the post that set me off, BTW.

I love how it manages to simultaneously be smugly superior, AND mock every non-lily-white-academia culture's spiritual practices from the dawn of humanity.

Hey, so one of my ancestral cultures induces a mentally altered state through chanting, burning sage, wearing costume, dance, and storytelling? Faust PITIES us!

It's so nice to know.

FUCK YOU, FAUST. EAT A BONE AND DIE.

lol

I suspect that Faust is the only Really Real Discordian in the universe.

If you had read any more of the thread or even the next three posts, in which Incognito responded to it, you would have seen that I was looking for a knee jerk reaction. The post was facetious, and you still didn't get that even when it was exposed before you ever responded.
I'm going to go ahead and ignore the comments about the ancestral heritage, both sets of mine separated by half a continent did the same things fyi.

Oh, it's just that I'm stupid.

I get it.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

IT WAS A SOCIOLOGICAL EXPERIMENT.

[Faust]

IT WAS A SOCIOLOGICAL EXPERIMENT.

not really, it was trolling, would have thought you of all people would have realized it.

[The Johnny]

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

Do you agree with him?

So, what does Kant have to say about negligent homocide?

My point was to see how far Guy Incognito was willing to take the objective morals viewpoint.

Kant's system is shitty because it does not take into account intention nor consequence.

So i guess youd get off the hook for a negligent homicide.

[Shai Hulud]

If it's objective, it should be testable, yes?

Of course.  I've already suggested a method of testing: by checking against intuition.  But naturally, that's problematic because people can have different intuitions, or at least different interpretations of the same intuitive forces.  There are ways of doing neurological tests to see what areas of the brain light up when exposed to certain moral situations, but that's problematic too.  So I'd say testable in theory, but not easily testable in practice.

What are you thoughts, Roger?  I gather that you're are some sort of free for all moral relativist, correct?  So where do you get your morals from?

[Shai Hulud]

So i guess youd get off the hook for a negligent homicide.

Yeah, Kant can lead to backwards results like that.  But the major contribution Kant made was rigorous systemization of moral philosophy, not necessarily how he implemented that system.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

If it's objective, it should be testable, yes?

Of course.  I've already suggested a method of testing: by checking against intuition.  But naturally, that's problematic because people can have different intuitions, or at least different interpretations of the same intuitive forces.  There are ways of doing neurological tests to see what areas of the brain light up when exposed to certain moral situations, but that's problematic too.  So I'd say testable in theory, but not easily testable in practice.

What are you thoughts, Roger?  I gather that you're are some sort of free for all moral relativist, correct?  So where do you get your morals from?

Nope.  I am a misanthrope and a Rain God.  My morals are programmed in (you get that when you hire on as a Mexica God), and mostly have to do with being an absolute shit to almost all humans.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

So i guess youd get off the hook for a negligent homicide.

Yeah, Kant can lead to backwards results like that.  But the major contribution Kant made was rigorous systemization of moral philosophy, not necessarily how he implemented that system.

So, again, it's like communism or free market bullshit.  Looks really nice on paper, or while you're sitting around at Starbucks solving the world's problems, but not so good in application.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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

Do you agree with him?

So, what does Kant have to say about negligent homocide?

My point was to see how far Guy Incognito was willing to take the objective morals viewpoint.

Kant's system is shitty because it does not take into account intention nor consequence.

So i guess youd get off the hook for a negligent homicide.

Kant is basically just another jackoff like Plato, then.

[The Johnny]

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

Do you agree with him?

So, what does Kant have to say about negligent homocide?

My point was to see how far Guy Incognito was willing to take the objective morals viewpoint.

Kant's system is shitty because it does not take into account intention nor consequence.

So i guess youd get off the hook for a negligent homicide.

Kant is basically just another jackoff like Plato, then.

Yup! The favourite two of burguoise pretentious pricks.

[Bu🤠ns]

I'd guess that objective morality manifests after an understanding that group cooperation is more beneficial than overall contention.  Not that the two aren't mutually exclusive (that would be naive) but it at very least seems like it might might be a piece of the foundation of objective morality.

[Shai Hulud]

My morals ... mostly have to do with being an absolute shit to almost all humans.

Congratulations on being a roaring success!  You're an inspiration to us lesser mortals:)

So, again, it's like communism or free market bullshit.  Looks really nice on paper, or while you're sitting around at Starbucks solving the world's problems, but not so good in application.

It's a mistake to think that moral philosophy is limited to sitting around at Starbucks.  There's a guy named Leon Kass who's an ethicist that didn't take the time to listen to your erudite critique of how much of a waste of time moral philosophy is.  And he's also some big muckymuck on some sort of National Bioethics commission, and so he spends his time convincing the president that cloning and stem cell research were too immoral to justify their benefits.  But if we have it the way you seem to want it, the people who actually have decent ideas about morals shouldn't waste their time at Starbucks, so we'll have nobody to stand up when people like Kass fuck things up for all of us.  Is this an unfair assessment?

[Epimetheus]

I take the Aristotelian position that happiness is the higher good. That said, I enjoy the hell out of being an asshole.