Kevin:

> >> The law *is* a CI, according to Kant.

Me:

> > So [sigh] there isn't a universal morality after all. If the law says
> > we have to sacrifice new-born babies to propitiate the gods then it
> > is morally right to do so, and if the law says we may by no means
> > sacrifice new-born babies to propitiate the gods then it is morally
> > wrong.

Kevin:

> That wouldn't be a law under a Kantian regime. Sheesh.

So only the laws Kant endorses are categorical imperatives?

Kevin also wrote, in another posting:

> How do you know if a law is improper? Is there an imperative to disobey
> improper laws?

How would *you* answer those questions, Kevin?

Me:

> > Sad, really. I'd been hoping for a more positive conclusion than that.

Kevin:

> Then simply make up another one. You had no problem making up that
> first one.

I wish I was Kant, then I could just make up what I like, and then when
people disagreed I'd say, "Oh, but under my regime that couldn't happen!"

BTW, I take it "Kantian regime" and "Kevinworld" are synonymous?

--
John
http://rarebooksinjapan.com