On Moral Authorities

[The Grand Nudger]

Because Kant was just flat out wrong.

I wouldn;t know, but I know that what you described has little, if anything, to do with my morality.

I can elaborate on Kant further if you want me to.

No need, really, nothing to do with my morality.

Is it bad to kill a terrorist about to bomb a building? 

Sure is, pewpewpew.  I'll parade his skull up and down the street and -still- be a good person, too.

Is it good to help with an assisted suicide?

Suppose it depends on the motivations of the person asking for help, eh?

Stop trolling please. We have to begin with what we mean by "authority" and there's no better place than the english dictionary. Accept it, or get out! 

Not trolling you at all, I just don;t respect your method....at all.

Elaborate please.

Seems self explanatory.  

They don't require a will, that's right. What Kant tries to establish is a purely rational way of doing things. He talks about hypothetical imperatives, such that e.g. "if you're hungry, then you ought to eat". It's simply a state of affairs where the individual is free to choose what to do. And if they want to satisfy their hunger, then rationally speaking, they ought to eat. From here, he establishes moral absolutes (categorical imperatives) such that they are akin to physical laws. Therefore, all he's saying is that to go "with the flow" will mean you're acting rationally (and thus morally correct). The moral law doesn't actually care about your will though. It's the other way around.

Meh, like I said, kant doesn't describe my morality.

I didn't say raw power on its own. Just the fact that power can allow you to act rationally on a bigger scale than the individual. It's a means to an end. 

-your definition did.....so, yeah, you did.  Unless you arent referring to that definition..which wasn't a definition of a moral authority anyway......

With all due respect, your preferences don't make an argument true or false. Therefore, nothing to see here.

..............?  I'm just telling you that it's not a theory of morality that ineterests me,.,I did, also, sday that I don;t think you even approached or -discussed- morality, but hey, carry on.

Why don't you agree? Explicate please.

Seems like another thing that ought to be pretty clear...but, if you insist.  I think you started with a poor definition, then referenced a formulation of moral values that I do not find compelling,. and topped it off with some ludicrous shit about what it meant to be absolute as though moral absolutes had something to do with available resources.  

Correct, provided Joe doesn't get one-upped by a god.

Which, ofc, he never will, since gods don't exist anywhere but Joe's mind.

Then you don't understand Kant, and apparently neither do my PhD ethics professors. 

It's not an issue of understanding, I just don't think it approaches morality as I apply it in my life. I'm not the sort of hedonist kant had in mind.

But you correctly identified Joe could be it? You can't correctly give me an answer and not think it to be credible.

Clearly, I can. It's not as if I find joe any more or less credible a moral authority as your "aking to a god"-thing.