*reveals your hiding place to a murderer*

Nah, the deliberate universality of the rule underlying one’s actions determines one’s moral worth.

Whether your words are truthful because honesty happens to benefit you with a pleasurable outcome, or whether your words are truthful because you intend to respect the autonomy of your listener by being honest, makes all the difference.

...

The rule being "thou shalt not lie". Lying can only happen when one communicates wrongful information. If one does not communicate any information, the rule is not violated.

Kantian morality is deontological, meaning consequences do not determine the moral worth of an action. Pleasurable outcomes literally mean nothing

>kant
>faget gommie
He advocated universal democracy, moral absolutism, and Christianity as a categorical imperative in and of itself, holding Christ as the ultimate ideal. He was a large part of the inspiration of most of the founding fathers, and had no idea what communism was.

As for the meme at hand:
youtube.com/watch?v=x_uUEaeqFog
In short, morals are absolute - it is NEVER moral to lie, regardless of the result.

Kant was a proponent of enlightenment ideals more than Christianity, and actually criticized the cosmological, teleological, and ontological arguments for God promoted by the church due to their 'a posteriori' nature and the limitations they put on the Deity. He did postulate God as a necessity of practical reason with the aim to justify the concepts of personhood and autonomy

The video assumes a faulty maxim i.e. "tell the truth". We can't be blabbing the truth ad infinitum. The maxim "you should not lie" appears to be more practical

>reveals your hiding place to a murderer
>but only after beating the shit out of him
FTFY

Moral autonomy is merely a development from protestantism that was the result of dissolution of divine authority. His arguments are weak, much more so than "relative morality" or divine morality.

Pic related, Kant.

I believe you’re correct that choosing not to answer the murderer, and instead slamming the door in their face, conforms to the categorical imperative.

But outcomes are not meaningless, if by this you mean “an action’s moral worth can’t be damaged if that action is at all motivated by the desire for a pleasurable outcome.” Consequences don’t “mean nothing” in this sense, because while concern for consequences can’t add moral worth to an action, such concern can negate the moral worth of an action.

Desires can distract from, or conform with, duty (“deon” in Latin); desires are prerequisite for happiness, but duty is prerequisite for the worthiness to be happy.

>Kantian morality is deontological, meaning consequences do not determine the moral worth of an action. Pleasurable outcomes literally mean nothing

He's right though. In the essay On the Supposed Right to Lie from Benevolent Motives, he says that good consequences, while they might be desirable on the whole doesn't change the category of a specific action.

Lying is wrong regardless of whether the consequences are good, as is murder and a whole host of other things.

Kant is a based classical liberal who btfo'd socialist/fascist utilitarian "philosophy" once and for all

4/10 bait

>Kant is a based classical liberal
We call ourselves "Liberalists" now. Look it up, fellow Kekistani.