Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis Cyphre
If it is acceptable to kill someone then in a society consisting of two people I am at an increased risk of being killed. The killer does not have to be afraid of retribution.
Interesting, your moral calculation invokes probability and thus a sense of game theory. However I'll point out, as you've probably already realized, that if the killer does not have to be afraid of retribution in that instance, neither do you if you become the killer yourself. I don't see anything preventing either of you from becoming murderous in that situation, apart from some deeply held and, most importantly,
self-governed moral belief that murder is wrong (which is of course contained within the Categorical Imperative).
In a related but slightly different issue, it seems to me that the Categorical Imperative can be interpreted in at least 2 senses. First, in the sense that Kant likely meant it: treat others not as means to an end, but as ends in themselves in a non-contained, universal sense that would apply even on the 2-person island in question. Secondly, in the merely pragmatic sense that the Categorical Imperative holds - and ONLY HOLDS - within greater society so as to prevent a mass descent into lawless, amoral chaos. In other words, if it wasn't for the need to maintain order in society to prevent its self-destruction, the Categorical Imperative would have no bearing.