>>10379129>There are nuances you shouldn't omit, specifically the fact that it's the act of everyone committing the deed making it impossible that makes it bad.Ok senpai
>choice made isn't the same thing as the potential for divergence from it. It sure isn't, but divergence that follows the choice is inherent and natural, so it should be taken into consideration as well. Following your own example, if everyone became a janitor, in the very beginning everyone indeed would have to take care of their own house and all needs that come with it like supporting it with electricity and stuff on their own, but due to the massiveness of such an event (everyone becoming a janitor) competition would be crazy, so people who are better suited for taking care of buildings would soon fill up that niche. Alternatively, if the institute of public property gets abolished as well, society would just degrade to its original state and division of labour would come around after some time, just like I've said in
>>10379092>The specific act you're performing can be judged differently depending on whether or not you include the context of that act in your evaluation of it, but it's not at all clear which evaluation should be used unless you want to rely on arbitrarity or some other external set of principles.That's my biggest issue with categorical imperative as well desu. To my mind it really suffers from lacking any sort of practical implementation which leads too discussions having to take into account all sorts of most absurd details, just like we are doing now.
>Well if everyone was a pedophile, pedophillia would still exist, it just wouldn't be criminalizedYeah, that's as far as I've figured, but I was more interested in impact that it would have on society, like, would children still get traumatised from early sexual experience in society where it's considered to be normal? But anyway, it's late here, so good night.
