Oh, hey Ted Bundy, what's up. Where's user? Oh, he's right over there in that closet good sir

1. Nice adhom
2. I'm not saying don't break that man's skull inot pieces, I'm saying that you're still breaking eggs to make an omelette

>Nice adhom
That wasn't an ad hominem.

> I'm not saying don't break that man's skull inot pieces,
So not immoral then.

Not him, but even the justice system we have in the West doesn't agree with you.

You would probably be acquitted in a court of law if you hurt someone who was trying to rape a child, but the whole reason you would be acquitted in the first place is because there exists a law that says harming people or sexually assaulting them is illegal, not because you personally find it horrendous(even though it is).

The fact that people generally follow laws in a country is a statement in favor of Kant's ethics in the first place.

>Need to grow up/Not an adhom by the way
>So not immoral then
It IS immoral just that the immoral action is arguably the best in that situation.

The reason you would be acquitted is because you have a right to self-defence, which includes the defence of others.

And a) people generally follow laws, therefore b) Kant's position on lying is correct is not a logically valid argument.

Define "best" in how it refers to people's actions in a way that has nothing to do with morality.

If its the most moral action then it is hardly immoral. Why did Kant have to say this? He said its okay for a mother to kill her bastard offspring but this is beyond the pale?

>Lying doesn't suddenly become a good action, simply because the situation is precarious.
Yes it does. Anyone who isn't autistic realizes this, hence we laugh at Kant.

OK I'll concede to that. My only argument is that the action is unethical (specifically lying but I guess the attempted rape follow's the same logic)

In the rape situation "best" is the action that most reduces the risk of physical harm to the victim (in addition to psychological and emotional). So without using morality I would argue that the harms associated with rape are things that impair one's ability to function effectively

>In the rape situation "best" is the action that most reduces the risk of physical harm to the victim (in addition to psychological and emotional). So without using morality I would argue that the harms associated with rape are things that impair one's ability to function effectively
This is explicitly discussing morality, it is not "without using morality" at all. You are making a moral argument.

Not only that but I asked you to define "best" not just use the word again without defining how you are using it.

Best doesn't mean moral. People do unethical things all the time however they (in this situation) can be considered the best action

I'm going to be honest. I want to know how my argument is moral when specifically relating it to physical harm. (Not being argumentative for the sake of it just genuinely unaware)
And you're absolutely right I didn't define best. I suppose that best would be whatever reduces the most personal and societal harms (unless they are opposed in which case society will come first)

No it doesn't. Anyone who isn't autistic realizes this, hence we laugh at Bentham.

How is a question over whether to cause physical harm to someone not a moral question? I'm sorry as well because I just don't know what you are talking about if you are just saying that is not a moral issue.

In regards to practical action guidance it is though. I'd argue that it if anything it could be violating the principle of humanity, because you're using the persons life as a means to preserve your own moral character with no regards to their safety. If we were to universalize that it would mean its perfectly acceptable to sit idly by while terrible shit happened because it would risk getting our hands dirty. I honestly feel in saying this Kant was just trying to grab people's attention by making a statement that made no sense in practice, considering he made exception for much more trivial actions.

You could just, like, tell him to stop and call the police.

OK I see where you're coming from. I'll concede that the issue of harming some is most certainly a moral issue . I'm only arguing that the action is unethical. However I'm still conceding that the unethical action of lying (or the causing of physical harm in this situation) is probably the most effective or "best" (according to the way I personally define best)

If Ted Bundy asked him that question Kant would refuse to answer him.

Ok that actually makes a lot of sense. I'll buy it.

Lying by omission.

not if he says i refuse to answer that question.

>"What would Kant say to a murderer asking him about the whereabouts of the potential victims." to which the answer is usually, "Tell him.", "Close the door.", or "Twist the truth so that what you are saying is not a lie in itself and therefore respects the categorical imperative."

Not all purely physical harm has to be a moral issue. Getting a tattoo physically harms someone, and without further context is neither moral or immoral, it is amoral.
If you were to consider whether to be come a tattoo artist or not would entail the decision of whether you are willing to physically harm people or not, however either choice could both be moral.

Of course you could bring morality into it if you wish, but it doesn't intrinsically need to be a part of the decision.

its so much simpler to just lie and save a life. Then ask for forgiveness if it bothers you too much.

If you inform someone your next statement will be a lie, is that next statement no longer a lie?

Yes lies are good because they're different kinds of lies.
Some food is bad for you and some is good because it's a different kind of food. "Lying" as a whole isn't immoral because there's lies that are ok and Kant's a faggot.