i'd rather do the right thing, the humanitarian thing than blindly follow 'rules' of conduct from a questionable source.
What you are suggesting is not exclusive with the moral imperative. In fact, its probably inclusive. You've just assumed that (insert religious dogma here) is the only guiding principle. I feel that presupposition is invalid. What's not OK is to see the problem, realize the humanitarian issue, and then say, "OK. How can I turn not doing the humanitarian thing into my own personal advantage." That's active rejection of the categorical imperative & you are now a sociopath.
Are you aware of what Kant's Categorical Imperative is? A clue in the word Categorical. Not modified or restricted by reservations. You are describing something there which is not Kant's Categorical Imperative, but a subjective decision you made given known circumstances. That is not Kant's Categorical Imperative, so from what you say, you're in danger of becoming a shmuck, a destroyer, a sociopath. Which is obviously what you seem quick to accuse others of when you deal God's Law as per Kant, but not what you would so readily intend to charge yourself with Iâd wager.
3200 posts, all in politics or religion. I see that I have been suckered. And I have a very good idea of what I am speaking of - I didn't just wiki it so I could insult people. And I never said I wasn't a shmuck. But I can see I am in good company. (add to ignore)
geez, so touchy , and completely incapable of substantiating anything you say. Yea right, you have a good idea of what you're speaking of.
Theoretically, you need not lie to save or protect Bob. You can simply refuse to answer Billy's question or participate in his enterprise in any way. However, you may wish to be armed when you do so.
If Bob is my friend, then I would tell Billy a false place to go find Bob. Now Billy can not hurt me, and I have time to go to Bob and tell him Billy is crazy and will murder him. Then Bob can protect himself.