The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
remember when Megan Markle complained her castle was too small?
| butt cheeks | 05/12/25 |
| Wang Hernandez | 05/12/25 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: May 12th, 2025 12:29 AM Author: butt cheeks (✅🍑) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5723933&forum_id=2).#48922981) |
Date: May 12th, 2025 1:01 AM Author: Wang Hernandez 1. Public Criticism of the Royal Institution (e.g., Oprah interview, Netflix documentary) • Action: Publicly shared personal grievances and claims of mistreatment by the royal family. • Intent: Claimed intent was to raise awareness of mental health issues and racism, and to reclaim personal narrative.
Kantian Evaluation: • Universalizability: If everyone aired family grievances publicly for perceived justice or healing, it might erode private trust and respect. This could be morally impermissible under Kant’s framework. • Respect for Others as Ends: If the monarchy or family members were presented primarily as oppressive or exploitative without full context or consent, this risks treating them as means to personal vindication or narrative control. • Conclusion: Under a strict Kantian lens, these actions may lack moral worth if not purely driven by duty to truth and respect for others’ humanity.
|