I'm not a Kant scholar so can't say much helpful about your interpretation of Kant (the contradiction test has always puzzled me), but there is an assumption in your argument that seems worth questioning. You suggest that if everyone listened to alternative rock, it wouldn't be alternative anymore, and so there is a contradiction in generalizing the maxim. But I wonder if it is essential to alternative rock that it is "alternative"? It seems to me that alternative rock is a kind of music (I kind I like a lot) that is not defined by its being alterantive, but by the norms of the genre. There are kinds of rock that aren't mainstream, but aren't "alternative rock" either. They are just unpopular. So "alternative rock" is not equivalent to "unpopular rock" or "non-mainstream rock". Philosophers sometimes distinguish two ways of using descriptions. One way is to pick something out, but once you've picked it out using the description, you can talk about that thing even in contexts where it...

From Socrates' point of view, doing wrong harms the soul. Since on his view the soul is the most valuable thing there is, it is important to protect the soul from this harm. Suffering evil, in contrast, doesn't harm the soul. It might harm the body. It might be psychologically difficult. But it doesn't harm the most valuable thing. So doing evil is worse than suffering it. Is it possible to make sense of this without accepting that there is a soul? You might think that there are different sorts of value: aesthetic value, moral value, individual well-being, etc. You might also think that some of these can "trump" others. So, for example, occasionally I am required to sacrifice some amount of well-being in order to do what is right. There may also be times when I must suffer at the hands of others in order to do what is right. When there is a conflict, fulfilling one's moral obligations is more important than achieving individual well-being. But this comes close to what Socrates was...