On Moral Authorities

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, why not hurt someone? Just because you want to? If so, then it is just an arbitrary choice, right? Isn't is Nietzsche is consistent when he says that it is just plagiarizing Christianity when secular are arguing for love instead of being true to reason alone?

Why not, indeed.  As suspected, you have no moral agency, therefore a conversation regarding morality with you would be pointless.  Like explaining addition to a rock.

All of this

is because you misunderstand Kant, right here explicitly:

He didn't have you in mind because he wasn't a hedonist. He advocated deontology.

Actually it's not, nubbins, lol.  It's because....and I can't believe I'm saying this to you, again, like it needs to be said...again.  I don't subscribe to the moral theory you've described.  I don't think that you discussed or even approached morality in any of your examples. But since you've pressed the issue, why have you been presenting hedonist utilitarian (read: teleological) examples as kants if kant advocated for deontology? Your examples -sound- as if they've come from a position of criticism of Kant...and very specifically from a position that kant's CI was teleological and utilitarian, as opined..for example, by John Stuart Mill asnd others. Not that you've adequetely described Kants CI, but hey, who am I to stop you while you're on a roll? Now go sit down and be ashamed of yourself.

Still wrong. Power puts you in a place of authority. That's what the word itself means. Acting rationally makes you a moral authority.

What's still wrong...your definition?  Your argument? Kant? Are you completely losing your shit or....? I've never argued that power doesn't put you in a place of authority, only asked you whether or not might made right..because unless it does, power doesn't put you in a position of -moral- authority. Additionally, if acting rationally is the metric, then reason is the moral authority, not any particular rational or moral agent.

Besides the point. Joe is still a moral authority. And if you don't

-not to me.....maybe to you, if you buy the load of shit you're peddling...after explicitly stating that you -don't- buy the load of shit you're peddling...while not actually describing the load of shit you're peddling, and so long as might makes right? 

then you're not understanding, yet. If Kant is correct

You realize why I'm stopping you right here, don't you...? It does't -matter- if kant was correct, to me, nor to you...nor to your argument regarding moral authority. Because even if he was right, and even if you somehow managed to accurately describe his position, it still wouldn't salvage the argument structure, or it's reliance on a poor definition of authority, let alone absolute authority.....and doesn't even begin to approach moral authority, or absolute moral authority - if such things exist in the first place. This has all been -worse- than wrong, from the bottom to the top.

You could have skipped it all and said "God is super duper powerful" and we'd have the essence of your idea of absolute moral authority, for all that's worth...which, obvs, to me, is -nothing-.