That point is not meant to be flat that will lend itself into a circular situation.
Note in this case it is a spiral in 3D and not 2D [we gone through this before] and there are two perspectives involved, i.e. the empirical and the rational [transcendental].
Within empirical reality humans observed and experienced acts of good and evil. Empirically it is obvious genocide is most evil in terms of the numbers of casualties involved relative to the murder of one person is generally considered evil.
Those philosophers whose ethics are based on the empirical would deal directly with empirical element to formulate their moral principles. For example, Hume, Sidgwick [intuitional model], and the likes which are tied to ends like happiness, well-being, pleasurable, customs, habits, etc.
Kant moral/ethical system on the other hand differs from the empirical-based ethical system.
From the observation of the empirical, Kant made the attempt to move away from direct involvement with the empirical and abstract [actually formulate] moral principles that are independent of empirical elements. This meant Kant moral principles and maxim are not the sort that are tied to feelings of good, well-being, pleasure, etc. This formulation of the categorical imperative [5 Formulae] is a complicated process. At this point there is no more link to the empirical, thus no possible linkage for circularity as they are no more in the same sense.
There is a good reason why Kant need to formulate moral principles that are independent of intuitions. As I explained to ArtPauper, it is avoid potential and subliminal corruptions by radical evil within humans.
Once Kant moral principles are formulated they need to be applied to the empirical world. Now the question is, if these moral principles are supposed independent of the empirical, how can we connect them with the empirical. This is why the use of Maxims, rules, laws etc. are to be used.
To establish maxims, one has to test them against the principles.
Once tested, the empirical strategies [aligned with the CI] are formulated for implementation. Note the Kantian system process I listed earlier.
There is no circularity at all but a spiral flow reconciling two perspectives, i.e. the higher faculty of reason modulates the lower empirical faculties.
I cannot see any purpose in your syllogisms nor are they leading anywhere.
Premiss A: “Genocide is always bad for all its victims.”
Premiss B: ? Bad is always a degree on the continuum of evil
Conclusion: “Genocide is always evil.”
I am not sure what your second syllogism is driving at?
The induction is based on the observations of the activities of all living entities.
Which living entity is seen to be born with a drive to die instantly?
Even mayflies that live for few hours after emerging from water is observed to have a drive to procreate and produce the next generation.
I infer from this the continuation of the species as verified by observations.
Btw, this is not Kant’s direct point.
He justified the Categorical Imperative is a very long and complicated process which I would prefer to avoid explaining here especially if you are not equipped and understand [not necessary agree] the details.
As I had stated, all living things strives to produce the next generation and/or strive to survive as long as possible till the inevitable.
There are many who infer the principle of the continuation of the species till the inevitable and I agree with that.
You got it wrong, it is the drive to produce the next generation that program sexual reproduction and gratification.
The emergence of living being is set along the following;
- Living things emerge
- They are imbued in their DNA with the drive to survive long enough to produce the next generation. I infer from this the preservation of the species.
- To do 2, they must avoid death
- To avoid death, they are programed with pains and sufferings potential that triggers in the face or in the midst of threat of death to steer them away from dangers.
- Pains and sufferings from are evil [as defined in the dictionary].
The categorical imperative as formulated in alignment with the moral impulse is to deal with evil (5) and therefore (2).
Note;
There are two main systems of moral/ethics, i.e.
- Empirical-intuition based ethics - Applied (Sidgwick)
- Reason-based moral principles within a Pure and Applied moral/ethical system. (Kant)
If you conflate the two in our discussion then you will be caught in a mess.