My chatbot keeps trying to convince me being a homosexual does not violate it because it only applies on a morally universal basis and not a practical one, or some shit along such lines.
>>24728448It doesn't make sense. Our free actions are supposed to be determined by reason, not sensibility; the free will is noumenal, something thought. But reason as such doesn't have any content so it becomes a rule of universality, anything that you think can serve as a universal rule is right. Kant says he thought this would lead to the golden rule and traditional morality, or was a scientific expression of same. But it has big league issues and was universally rejected by the other idealists - universality is empty of content; anything could satisfy it; how can reason be completely separate from sensibility if the will is the will of a sensitive animal; etc.
>>24728448Let's see how the maxim "be a homosexual" harmonizes with itself if we take it under the form of a universal law. We can see right away that it does not harmonize with itself since if everyone held this maxim the human race would go extinct. Therefore such a maxim can only ever hold for the subject and is not suitable to become practical moral principle
>>24728448Your Chatbot is correct. In fact it’s reproducing that would violate the CI
>>24728997That implies you decide to be gay
>>24728448It's a form of an a priori synthetic judgment. It's not about what should or should not be but simply about what is or is not.For example lying is wrong not because it is "unethical" but simply because it is the stetement of an obvious untruth, it is literally "wrong", i.e. not correct.
