[Cornell Fiji]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you lived your life by Kantian maxims then this decission would have been easy for you and you would have brought it to the dealers attention that you got quartered.

[/ QUOTE ]

I could very well be wrong about the kantian maxim youre talking about, but I think you are wrong. If everyone behaved in the same way as op, that is, let the dealer call the hand, and screw your opponent if he or the dealer doesn't see it, poker would not degenerate into chaos. Especially if such behavior was reserved for percieved [censored].

Are you talking about the kantian maxim that judges an act based on the consequences if everyone acted similarly? (ex. If everyone ran red lights, much destruction would ensue, therefore it is wrong for me to run red lights)

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure... lets drail this post :-)

Note: I am not an authority on this subject. If someone would like to correct me or say that my interpretation is correct please do so.

The Kantian maxim that I was implying was "It is wrong to take what is not rightfully yours." This could easily translate into an universal truth and it is likely one that Kant would endorse. It certaintly would fit in this situation and would indicate that the OP should have spoke up and corrected the dealer.

Your point was good though, I am not sure if my rationale proves you wrong but here is what I came up with: There are several problems with having a maxim of "Let the dealer call the hands"
1) The OP has previously stated that dealers are not capable at O8 and they actually need players to help them out.
2) The OP said that he previously has helped the dealers therefore this could not be a maxim of his
3) I think that 1/2 are sufficient arguments against your maxim however a world could be imagined in which O/8 dealers were competant and that correcting them was wrong. In such a world if everyone (and you are correct in applying the maxim to everyone) corrected the dealers unnecessary chaos would ensue. I believe that this maxim falls apart for the following reason:
a. There is no moral judgement in helping the dealers read boards. Maxims must be paired with their motivation and since the dealers in this hypothetical society are able to properly call out hands then what is your motivation for calling out the hands?
i. If your motivation in this hypothetical society is to harass the dealers then the maxim would be "it is wrong to harass people" and that would probably hold true.


The MTT I am in just started so I have to stop thinking about Kant... please correct me if there are any logic errors in my above statement.