>>25824>i am being forced to think for myself, please help.hmm…
>>25825>rich people are inherently moral<poor people are inherently immoralso insightful…
>>25828What are you actually trying to say? People are immoral, therefore we should not strive to be moral ourselves? At least Plato posits a "greater good" at the expense of conditional immorality, and Aristotle posits a greater good by original causes, yet you have no stated theory of what constitutes virtue so as to disagree with Kant. Kant's notion of virtue is based in necessity, according to practical reason, in that what is best to do must be done for its own sake, and thus be unconditional. Only by this may activity be considered an "end in-itself" and thus allow for positive freedom in man. If elsewise, then the Will is bound to contingency, and thus its ends are separated from its means. In this, man is always enslaved to a higher condition than himself, and so can never be free. So then, freedom is a question of law, but an inward law, like Rousseau's General Will, or the Apostle Paul's Law "written on our hearts". I once spoke to someone who claimed that Kant was promotinhg self-justification, while I viewed Kant as still being protestant, for Man is not taken to be an end in himself, besides his accordance to the Moral Law, which is subjectively revealed rather than objectively mandated. Zizek further attributes this to predestination and the unconscious, as having their inscribed practical reason (e.g. LGBT persons "choose" but do not "choose" their subjective identity, and so what is voluntary is also necessary, e.g. a cat. imp.)