@sulfidedisburseangledafternoontipper@piefed.blahaj.zone
Post #2117448
2026-04-24 23:10 UTC
This argument is specious. It implies that there's an ethical way to engage in any imaginable act and ignores the possibility of the existence of acts which may never be ethical under any circumstance. This isn't a question of whether someone has "learned this shit." You've created a tautology re: the existence of an ethical means to all ends. One doesn't need to accept Kant's Categorical Imperative to believe that some acts can never be ethical.
Replies (1)
-
@givesomefucks@lemmy.world 2026-04-25 00:23
> ignores the possibility of the existence of acts which may never be ethical under any circumstance. Name 1, and I bet I can justify it ethically. Like, "if you don't do ____, then superman blows up the sun" is the obvious one, but depending on what you say, I can dial back some.