What is your answer?
Kant in a footnote objected that GR is only a theorem derived from the formula of universal law. To this we may respond that
{ 1 } - the formula of universal law is a theorem too -- since it's derivable from axioms U, P, and R.
{ 2 } - a theorem needn't be of less value than an axiom.
{ 3 } - both of these.
<= back | menu | forward =>
Directions: Click on a number from 1 to 3.
1 is wrong. Please try again.
Kant in a footnote objected that GR is only a theorem derived from the formula of universal law. To this we may respond that
{ 1 } - the formula of universal law is a theorem too -- since it's derivable from axioms U, P, and R.
{ 2 } - a theorem needn't be of less value than an axiom.
{ 3 } - both of these.
We can also give the other response.
<= back | menu | forward =>
2 is wrong. Please try again.
Kant in a footnote objected that GR is only a theorem derived from the formula of universal law. To this we may respond that
{ 1 } - the formula of universal law is a theorem too -- since it's derivable from axioms U, P, and R.
{ 2 } - a theorem needn't be of less value than an axiom.
{ 3 } - both of these.
We can also give the other response.
<= back | menu | forward =>
3 is correct!
Kant in a footnote objected that GR is only a theorem derived from the formula of universal law. To this we may respond that
{ 1 } - the formula of universal law is a theorem too -- since it's derivable from axioms U, P, and R.
{ 2 } - a theorem needn't be of less value than an axiom.
{ 3 } - both of these.
Kant also objected that GR doesn't cover duties to oneself, while the formula of universal law does. While I grant this, I note that the self-regard and future-regard principles (which are close relatives of GR) do cover duties to oneself.
<= back | menu | forward =>
Before continuing, you might try some wrong answers.
the end