Quote from: Elwar on June 29, 2013, 05:22:41 PM

Quote from: kokjo on June 29, 2013, 08:31:21 AM

i think you got the point.
just because i think that murder is morally acceptable, does not mean that i have to go around and kill people. because its not the optimal strategy, but why disallow it, and artificially limit ones ability to act?

Taking a look at how Kant defines what is morally permissible...

Kant's first formulation of the Categorical Imperative states that you are to act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law. (G 4:421) O'Neill (1975, 1989) and Rawls (1989, 1999), among others, take this formulation in effect to summarize a decision procedure for moral reasoning, and I will follow them: First, formulate a maxim that enshrines your reason for acting as you propose. Second, recast that maxim as a universal law of nature governing all rational agents, and so as holding that all must, by natural law, act as you yourself propose to act in these circumstances. Third, consider whether your maxim is even conceivable in a world governed by this law of nature. If it is, then, fourth, ask yourself whether you would, or could, rationally will to act on your maxim in such a world. If you could, then your action is morally permissible.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/

So for the moral question of whether you should steal or not.
1. Your reason is that you want stuff from someone else. First step passes.
2. Should everyone steal? This is where stealing falls apart...if everyone steals then the world decends into chaos.

would i live in a world where people did what they liked to do? yes.

good, are we done now?