Kant BTFO

If I have to work under Kantian constraints: I just don't let him in. I would universally not allow a stranger into my house.

Why would he want to kill my wife, though?

>implying a guy pointing a gun at you can even think rationally

Kant's philosophy only works when dealing with individuals on the same level. It crumbles when faced with irrationality.

Why wouldn't you just draw and shoot him when he isn't looking?

He's still the one with a drawn gun. Just because he isn't looking doesn't mean he isn't pointing. Fumble a tiny bit drawing and you're dead.

Fucking KEK

I know your pain user

Doesn't that situation force you to choose between two Categorical Imperatives? "Don't lie" and "Don't betray those who trust you"

There's only one categorical imperative, don't use people solely as means to an end. This also implies that you shouldn't take away another's autonomy. Lying is doing just that, therefore you must tell the truth.

I educate him on Stirnerist egoism.

Kant used Plato as a sole means (a dead person cannot be an ends) in developing his easily-projectable moral philosophy.

Kant wrote some shit saying that we should treat other human beings "ends" rather than mere "means to an end." This recognizes the other's autonomy. When presented with this type of "a guy comes to your house and says: Where is your friend(and you can see his malcontent). You should not lie to him as it would be a "moral" devaluation of his autonomy" An argument against pic related, as far as I'm aware, is to tell the man a misleading truth, like "he went to the mall earlier" even though he is in the next room. This loophole means you did nothing wrong, and offers you a moment to call the cops and report your civil concerns. Of course this is hoping that the angry man is a hurdurwerserfrend instead of someone ironically saying "back the fuck away I'm here to see your friend"

What if he's an actual spook?

The ridiculousness of this is even suggesting that there is a philosophical problem.

If your philosophy requires you to stop in this situation and consider whether you should tell him the truth or not, then you're doing it wrong.

Also, if you actually knew shit at all about Kant you'd know that the imperatives exist in a hierarchy. Imperatives deriving from the emotion we call Love, such as protection of loved ones, supersedes an imperative involving personal dignity, such as not lying.

lel

Yes.

underrated post

In many ways it's a very beautiful and optimistic system. A lot of it ultimately just boils down to be nice to one another and respect your fellow human.

I've always thought of Kant as the bright eyed innocent child of philosophy who just assumes everyone is good and rational like him.

>I've always thought of Kant as the bright eyed innocent child of philosophy who just assumes everyone is good and rational like him.
Literally autism

>be nice to one another and respect your fellow human
let's not pretend he didn't have an ulterior motive for this tho

How is it even possible to be this short?

welcome to the middle ages

>manlet
>virgin
>didn't listen to music
>lived in a barren house
>lived to an extremely ordered schedule

he was an autist

look at how ugly he is and how autistic he was, pretty obvious he had bottom of the barrel genetics.

he probably was borderline retarded too and just worked extremely hard, a true example of an incel beta that thinks the career meme can save him

>middle ages

pre-modern era then

Tip Top

>imperatives exist in a hierarchy

Is that true?

You can simply remain silent, you are not obligated to provide information, you are just disallowed from providing false information.

>disallowed

>your desire to uphold your philosophy being stronger than the will to protect the ones you love

>I'm not going to tell you
>I'm not certain
>Wherever she went, she's probably somewhere else
>*Tells him where she was at some point in the day without telling where she is now, then call police*
>*See above, but then attack him when his guard is down and hope for the best*
>Ask him why he wants to kill my wife, generally keeping his attention on me while she hides/calls police
>Scoop/Tackle him before he's finished speaking, probably get shot.

There's a couple things you can do without lying. Or you can take it in good faith that Kant wouldn't disapprove of you lying to save your loved ones from dying, so long as you're not putting others in immediate risk in the process. If I sent him somewhere else, it's going to be a relatively isolated area, for example.

If you actually read Kant you would know he wrote about this subject and said he would tell the truth. He also wrote that there is an objectively just action for every situation, no hierarchy.

Tell him exactly where she is without hesitation then then curl up in a fetal position and scream and cry until I'm sure I'm safe

don't forget

>german

unironically the best answer in this thread

>objectively just action for every situation

That's where I disagree, no even occurs in a vacuum. Don't pull the hurrdurr outer space joke

youtu.be/vZQJFbrqjUY?t=3m27s

MY SIDES