An @baah/@mindhunter Case Study Question of Kantian Ethics Coupled With Utilitarianism To Boggle The Mind!
Kantian dynamics
@mindhunter is a home carer, and has cared for @baah for some time through the final weeks of his fatal illness from over-curating on Steemit.
Just before @baah died, he stated to @mindhunter where his large stash of Steem was located in a hidden wallet. He asked @mindhunter to see that the Steem was sent immediately to the @ganjagirls wallet upon his death.
Since @baah's illness did not really interfere with his brain function, @mindhunter agreed.
Once @baah had passed away, @mindhunter considered using the Steem to support the lovely selfie activities of @halo instead - a Steemit user that he thought that was more deserving of the Steem. @baah also died without a will.
Run this through full Kantian analysis and identify @mindhunter's maxim.
Odd...I was texting @Baah just now.
He must be texting from beyond the grave.
This post will test his critical mind to the max :) Failure to comply will mean he's banned from the NSFW tag for a week! Ha ha!
P.S. He will also be banned from the NSFW tag for a week if he doesn't RS this post ;)
@baah will need to then need to feed from the NSFW scraps from my Resteems! Ha ha!
[Insert first baahian critical thinking comment here!]
I hate categorical imperatives!!
I ate one for breakfast :) YUM!!
CLUE: What is a maxim? A maxim is the rule or principle on which you act. For example, I might make it my maxim to give at least as much to charity each year as I spend on eating out, or I might make it my maxim only to do what will benefit some member of my family.
you want Maxims?
I haz some maxims..
To whit
more Maxims...many more
Ha ha! Wrong answer! [nice laugh though @everittdmickey! Truck on dude!]
Alas...I fear my truckin dayz is ovah...I iz retired...
at the moment I'm thinking about a kayak.
I bet your never thought there was an @baah waiting for you at that final truck stop! Ha ha!
final stop was @home
the wife would have been surprised (and unhappy) to see bah there.
(NOT as unhappy as he would have been)
I'm sure he'll pass by to bless your comment soon :)
I think I'll just bail outright here. LOL!
Ha ha! Chicken!!
oh..before I forget.
regarding the post...@Bahh aside.
There iz two kinds of peoplez..
There is US...and there is THEM.
US is friends and family
THEM is everyone else.
In good times we can afford to have ethics regarding THEM.
In bad times....kill em when we see em.
I can hear Metallica's 'Kill Em' All' playing in the background! Great album ;)
The Kantian trail continues on ....
This post has been ranked within the top 25 most undervalued posts in the first half of Apr 03. We estimate that this post is undervalued by $0.21 as compared to a scenario in which every voter had an equal say.
See the full rankings and details in The Daily Tribune: Apr 03 - Part I. You can also read about some of our methodology, data analysis and technical details in our initial post.
If you are the author and would prefer not to receive these comments, simply reply "Stop" to this comment.
If you give the money to halo, you then lied and didn't give the money to who you promised then obviously you want to live in a world where people lie and don't keep their promises, so in the case of the later you used me as a means to your ends, thus you don't follow kantian philosophy:
Because you didn't specify if you gave the money to halo, only considered it, one cannot come to a conclusion on what your maxim is, but I can say that your maxim in this situation is to consider the utility of my wish before deciding whether or not to keep the death bed promise. Therefore if there is a maxim to be derived it's that you would consider breaking a death bed promise if you consider it's utility as less then other options, but we cannot say if you would actually break the promise or follow through with giving the money to who I asked you to give the money to, as the premise only says you would consider, and not act on that consideration.
Keeps promise:
@ganjagirls get the money
Certainty:
Low
Give money to @halo
@halo takes selfies to help other Steemians
Certainty:
Very high
@mindhunter actions are discovered by an outside party:
Certainty:
Low :)
Obviously if you would have asked for an analysis of the options you would expect one, but having asked to figure out what maxim you adhere to you received that, not the former.
But in cases of promise breaking, deception, and coercion (to name a few) people act wrongly in using each other as mere means. For example: if George makes a promise to Joanne with the intention of breaking it, and Joanne accepts, then Joanne has been deceived as to George’s true maxim. Joanne cannot in principle consent to his scheme of action since she doesn’t even know what it is. She is being used as a mere means. Likewise, one cannot consent to coercion because consent requires having a choice.
To treat someone as an end requires that one not use him or her as mere means. Beyond that, we have a duty to promote others plans and maxims by sharing some of their ends, thus respecting others ends in the fullest way. But people’s wants are many, diverse and often incompatible, so we cannot help everyone.
To finish: A @mindhunter treat shall await thee in the NSFW section within a few minutes Time to set aside the deep Kantian neurons for the day for some pure hedonistic pleasure instead :)
Steem on @baah!