the example of the Holy water, that in my mind scenario is contaminated by a zombie virus, it´s just to show that there are no universal actions that can be good or bad. There´s always a context to take into account, becouse values do not exist in themselves, as they are mere abstractions. They gain real, or physical status when they become "flesh" in a real situation, and that will always imply their actuality can not be defined separated from that context. Lying is about respecting others and being fair. So it is the amount of fair play that we need to recognize in a given situation, and not the nominal actions. Moreover, there are always different values being played out or manifested, so the ethical level of "fairness" need to be reconciled with the level of other values that we need to consider. That is, honesty is good, but absolute honesty is not good at all becouse there is also life, freedom, justice, loyalty...that need to be protected.

As if I hadn't written "not unusually so."

I never do that, when women ask me about dresses and hairstyles I´m brutally honest. They themselves prefer it that way, when they realize they can count on your sincerity.

There´s always a context to take into account, becouse values do not exist in themselves, as they are mere abstractions — DiegoT

I'd add "that particular individuals have in mind, where different individuals can value the same situations very differently."

So when you're dealing with someone who you think is simply fat, or ugly, etc., and you know they're very sensitive, self-conscious, etc. about it?

^Wait, what's this about zombie virus, and what are you trying to say with the zombie virus, I fail to grasph hahaha

^Yep

yes, but that human aspects, well undestood (contextualized) is also positive. I think Kant just wanted to avoid the mess we are in the XXI century. I think he has a point that universals must exist, he just could not understand how they should be established. I blame Newton, and his strange idea of the cosmos. If Kant had been born twenty years ago, I´m sure he´d bring his concerns to a better port, with the advantage of philosophical tools appearing after him and also science. But if he had been born now and not in the XVIII century, philosophers after him would not have arrived at the same places, following or distancing themselves from Kant...

I think he has a point that universals must exist, — DiegoT

In the context of ethics, I don't agree with him about that. I'm not sure I'd agree with him about that in any context, actually.

you kan´t agree with him perhaps becouse you don´t feel the same urge he and other people like me experience to find some ground for the defense of life and freedom. My argument in favour of universals, is that some preferences in relation to human behaviour lead to preservation and memory (diversity and complexity) and other preferences lead to extinction and oblivion. Some preferences are highly entropic, and others try to keep lower entropy levels and homeostasis. My idea is that patterns that work for survival are better than those that are a dead-end. They are not exactly better, they just stay longer. Everything that exists, not just living creatures, come from the right choices leading to continued existence; and human behaviour is no different. We have preferences so that we can choose the best way to survive and evolve. So ethical universals are unavoidable, as the alternative is not to exist. However, these universals can only refer to values, not concrete actions in which values are incarnated that are context-dependent. Don´t you agree?

The British speak with a lot of double negatives that are unnecessary. Bad habit.

My argument in favour of universals, is that some preferences in relation to human behaviour lead to preservation and memory (diversity and complexity) and other preferences lead to extinction and oblivion. — DiegoT

There's no problem that some preferences lead to preservation overall and some lead to extinction overall.

The problem is that that doesn't imply that universals exist.

If you have 1,000 individuals, and 999 of them have preferences that lead to preservation overall, while 1 has preferences that lead to extinction overall,then nothing is likely to be impacted, overall, whether (a) the population survives, or whether (b) there are mostly individuals that have preferences that lead to preservation.

But in that case we don't actually have a universal. And it wouldn't matter for survival if we had a universal rather than one outlier.