Welcome to Gaia! ::

Somehow, I don't think you are getting the point. The point is, that the Kantian quote is the proof of the following philosophy: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." (I.e. Kant's categorical imperative). It doesn't matter whether you lie or not, or whether others lie or not, and it is not about making a universal law. This proof statement is about showing one how to act (note, it is not prescribing morals, necessarily, ethics - yes, morals - not quite). It is saying that if you are to act in a way, make sure it is the way you would want someone to act onto you. For example, (lying) lets say you cannot stand being lied to, it is then evident that you should not lie to others.

Moreover, through some philosophical work (that I am not up to showing right at this moment), the quote that serves as the proof for the philosophy shows us what "good" actions are, and what "bad" actions are. "Good" actions are those that do not end paradoxically, and work with being a universal law; "bad" actions are those that end paradoxically, and/or cannot be a universal law. As we have already witnessed lying cannot be a universal law (1. because it is a paradox, 2. because we don't always lie).

Oh, and about the tests, I will not be so brash as to say that a good portion of people will not survive, (I am not only a Cartesian Skeptic, I am also a dualist). Nor will I be so quick to say that a good portion would physically die. I will, however, say that upon previous data gathered (i.e. wars, gun crimes, etc), that it is a good assumption that those shot in the face, or some vital part of the body, will physically die (a very good assumption). It is only a [very] good assumption because until the event happens, we have no knowledge of the results, unless we can see into the future, for all cases of said event.

The only reason there are universal laws is because the statement "there are no universal laws" is necessarily false everytime it is stated. For as soon as it is true, it is false, as it is a universal law, and as soon as there is one universal law, the statement is false. The statement is thus necessarily false.

However, this relies completely on the assumption that the universe tends towards logic. If the universe tends toward not logic (anything but logic) then this conclusion may not be right.


Simply put, this is completely wrong. A bullet, has in the past killed. We have no knowledge if it can happen again in the future. Though it is still a good assumption.


Yes and no. We can talk all we want to about physical death without going into the realm of spirituality. Witnessed above.


I do not necessarily believe we do make our own choices. However, I do not believe that some god has already predetermined our actions either. I believe our actions are caused by a lot of variables. Most of the cause of our actions, relies on past actions that have taken place.

Also, we do not have freewill. We have not freewill, meaning anything but freewill.

Freewill = complete freewill.
Complete freewill = we are not limited by any stretch of the imagination, physical reality, etc. We have an infinite amount of options for each decision.

Limited freewill = not freewill (anything but freewill).
Not freewill = we do not have an infinite amount of options for each decision.

How do we have not freewill? Simple, lets use an example of a true or false question. This question can only be answered in four ways: T, F, T and F, or not answered at all. I have only four options, I am therefore, limited in my options. In other words, I may have the freewill to choose any of those four options, however, I do not have the freewill to choose a fifth option, or a sixth option, etc.

I therefore do not have complete freewill. Since complete freewill = freewill, I do not have freewill. I must therefore have something other than freewill, or not freewill.

"do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is not a law, but something for some people to live by. it doesnt apply to everyone(some people are always kind, whatever you do to them), but for others, its a way of life. i dont fit in either, cause i know itll bite me on the a** someday, but thats the price for what i personally believe.

What if you want to be treated differently than others want to be treated? What I want to say is couldn't it be, that something I do to another person with good intentions could be misunderstood or not appreciated because the other person has different views of being treated nicely? Couldn't something you don't think is rude be rude to another person? What then?

Well, when you accidently treat someone in a way they consider rude, would you not like them to understand that you did not know they did not like that? If you want the understanding in this situation, the answer is rather simple, give them the same understanding when they do it to you.

Also, would you not like other people to know how to treat you? If you do want them to know, then you should tell them in a way that shows respect, and is the same as how you would want them to tell you. Keep in mind, if you do this, expect them to do the same.

What it really comes down to is a little simplified thinking. What I mean by that is the common sense that is often lost among people during day to day life.

This is why I provided the first answer. The understanding of accidental, or non-intended ignorance.

Wow, if that doesn't sound like a cool new way to justify ignorance.