From: "Phil Roberts, Jr." 




malenor wrote:
> 
> "Phil Roberts, Jr."  wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >
> > The categorical imperative isn't actually a categorical
> > imperative.  It is entailed by the implicit premise, 'Given that one
> > chooses to be rational'.
> 
> snip
> 
> This is incorrect. The CI holds whether you choose to be rational or
> not. That is why it is a law, a law of human nature, and not a rule
> contingent on one's subjective choices.  It is, rather, governmental
> law that changes in its application to the penal code, when it
> recognizes that sometimes people are in a situation where they cannot
> choose. The CI on the other hand, is not a matter of subjective whim.
> It's not a matter of, for example, waking up in the morning and
> saying: "I choose not to be rational today, therefore morality no
> longer applies to me." Where did you get the idea that this was the
> idea behind the CI?

My own limited imagination apparently, and my assumption that justification
is about rationality through and through.   Are you
suggesting that we are obligated to conform to the CI for no reason
whatsoever?

pr