Timeline for On Kant's Universalisability
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 15, 2014 at 10:32 | vote | accept | lagrange103 | ||
| Oct 15, 2014 at 10:22 | comment | added | Anon | 1. Drugs - if everyone were allowed to take drugs, then everyone would be high all the time so one can't 'take drugs' so to speak? << Non-Sequitur. Just because one is "Allowed", it does not follow that someone will. | |
| Oct 15, 2014 at 10:11 | answer | added | virmaior | timeline score: 2 | |
| Sep 18, 2014 at 12:12 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackPhilosophy/status/512574876528287746 | ||
| Sep 14, 2014 at 23:34 | answer | added | Mozibur Ullah | timeline score: 2 | |
| Sep 14, 2014 at 13:20 | comment | added | Gelato di Cræma | I see a difference between your examples. 1. A property is something which the society gives in your unique disposition. By this it inhibits other people any access to this something - it puts by its own moral authority the label "wrong action" on any such an attempt, theft including. Thus a definition of a property precludes an universialisation of theft. 2. If lying would be permitted, it does not mean that the truth disappears - one can say a truth, anyway. | |
| Sep 14, 2014 at 12:36 | history | asked | lagrange103 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |