I might just be daft here, but isn't a categorical imperative just bossier and failing to state the conditions/goals under which we should follow it? The Kantian one from my perspective just seems to be a linguistic trickery simply omitting the implied hypothetical. "Perform this action if you deem it in accordance with what you wish to be universal law if you wish to become a part of a utopian society in which other beings all behave this way." Why does, "do your homework" imply a hypothetical but Kant's categorical imperative doesn't? We might just say, "do your homework because that is what you should do," and propose some arbitrary set of axioms we make up for why all beings should do their homework regardless of their desires. What makes Kant's justifications for the categorical less fallible than this proposed scenario? How about I just propose a notion like, "Act in a way such that it is in accordance with what you never wish to be a universal law. Treat all others as a means to an end. Act in a way such that you should become the dictator of the hell that you created." What makes such assertions any more or less valid than Kant's beyond a larger number of people's distaste for such a proposal?
![[Full Episode] The Restaurant War Thailand ศึกพ่อค้าซ่าแม่ค้าแซ่บ Episode 2 | 29 ก.ย. 67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/r3lfLNH6Ke4/mqdefault.jpg)
I might just be daft here, but isn't a categorical imperative just bossier and failing to state the conditions/goals under which we should follow it? The Kantian one from my perspective just seems to be a linguistic trickery simply omitting the implied hypothetical. "Perform this action if you deem it in accordance with what you wish to be universal law if you wish to become a part of a utopian society in which other beings all behave this way."
Why does, "do your homework" imply a hypothetical but Kant's categorical imperative doesn't? We might just say, "do your homework because that is what you should do," and propose some arbitrary set of axioms we make up for why all beings should do their homework regardless of their desires. What makes Kant's justifications for the categorical less fallible than this proposed scenario?
How about I just propose a notion like, "Act in a way such that it is in accordance with what you never wish to be a universal law. Treat all others as a means to an end. Act in a way such that you should become the dictator of the hell that you created." What makes such assertions any more or less valid than Kant's beyond a larger number of people's distaste for such a proposal?
Thank you
very clear explaination thanks