you kant do that

I don't know what to write about today. Lets talk about Kantian ethics, why not. I don't actually know what Immanuel Kant looks or sounds like. But I imagine he's this german monk who's extremely rigid. And talks with a piercing baritone. Regularly tut tuts my moral choices (and yours too).

His categorical imperative is a neat concept. It appears simple enough on paper that I wish I could just follow that. The concept was somewhat revolutionary at the time for its departure from theological ethics. It was a type of moral ethics you could do entirely oustide of religion. Problem is, it is just so damn rigid. "It's not really moral ethics, if you can pick and choose when to apply it" Kant might say. Or at least definitely whisper with a real judgey look on his face.

The categorical imperative asks you to think in unversal maxims. I.e, your actions must be done with no further consideration by -everyone-. By no further considerations, I mean there can be no "conditions". You can't say "don't lie except if* / it's convenient to you/ you're covering for someone at work/ you're talking to the cops/ you really want to/ it's to yourself / there's a really polite axe murderer at the door who's looking for your cousin Steve and he's in the kitchen nextdoor/ you want another sample at Costco. You just have to say "don't lie". It's the difference between a categorical imperative vs. hypothetical imperative. And you should only act that way, if when you acted that way - it instantly became a universal law that everyone must follow. That is to say, act as you would want others to act. Sure, It -sounds- simple, but as in with anything deontological (the branch of philosophy that postulates that actions are right / wrong / permissable based on the actions themselves and not the consequences) it is not. It's often contrasted with consequentialism because according to the categorical imperative, even if the results are positive the act could be morally wrong.

Say you're walking by the town square with a pond nearby and you spot a drowning child. You know that calling the authorities is likely to at least take 10-15 minutes, time the child doesn't have (according to you). But, the child, a devout Kantian, tells you "oh no worries dude, take your time coming up with a universal maxim, I'm not going anywhere " Wow, what a break. Now lets think. Well, if -everyone- ran into ponds to save kids, would that be so bad? So many kids would be saved! But then you remember getting winded just carrying groceries up the stairs the other weekend. Do you even still remember how to swim? Do you know that you can swim AND pull another body out of the water? Well now… with that small consideration if everyone were to run into the pond and try saving drowning kids, there's a chance two people die instead of one being saved. That doesn't sound that great. Plus, what if you're not good at assessing the risk of running into the pond. What if the kid kicks you and you drown too. "Anytime dude" the child says, not as patient this time. Well HOLD on, this is serious. Well, if I called for help (and everyone called for help when faced with this situation) more people would be saved by the EMT/Fire Department than if left alone, therefore maybe that's what I morally ought to do?

So you look down at the kid in the pond and say "I called the authorities! The rest is on you" and strut away morally justified. That doesn't feel quite right. Does it? Hm.

But in other (less dire) circumstances, I think the categorical imperative holds. I think in general being a moral perfectionist is a fool's errand. But they're fun to think about.

And thinking about whether your choices are moral, may lead to you to incrementally become better. It keeps you engaged on the act of being mindful about your actions. I hold that as the prime moral responsibility that we have. Be better today than you were yesterday. And if you can, help others do the same (should they wish).

Or you know, just do whatever. What do I know, I'm just a random guy on the internet.