Again?

no man

<:Monkas:459545654029713408>

@[ϟϟ-Ostf] Kurt Daluegette we know idiot

if they comin in here

Kant wanted to marry Rationalism and Empiricism

what we doin

I look forward to skullfucking Antifa bugmen. I'll think of @Deleted User while doing so.

because his argument for ETHICS is one based on RATIONAL perimeters

it's an AXIOMATIC argument

@JogaFlame staff are aware of the situation chill

oh ok

AND ALSO deontological one

@JogaFlame pretend to be a tankie server

@Leaf Supremacist they'll never notice

it creates a UNIVERSAL AXIOM of morality

Kant doesn't claim this as objective

knowledge of morality is not a priori

WHICH would lead us down a whole 'nother rabbithole

but try to grasp these basics first.

Alright but why is the dichotomy between objective and subjective morality incorrect?

because morality is metaphysics

no serious philosopher makes claims for objective morality

he might appeal to G-d as the foundation for his deontological system

but the system is still metaphysics built on scripture (which has been done many times during the Scholastic period)

Yeah but that doesn't explain why there isn't a dichotomy between the subjective and objective bases of morality.

There absolutely is.

there is no such dichotomy

That's why everyone but you was able to grasp the question.

:(

that's because the internet spreads bad information

I like you better when you're being a turboautist.

the greatest philosophers of Christian ethics

never claimed "objective morality"

Perhaps hours of turboautism drained your fuel cells.

they raelised the issue of morality is far more complex than that petty distinction

maybe you should actually read the Thomists

before you go spouting off this utter tripe

objective morality is unknowable and unprovable, but it exists

and utilitarianism has more in common with Kantian deontology than relativism

because utilitarians make a universalist argument much like Kant did