Kant: a short story by Agent Smith
NOTE: I'm posting this here for Agent Smith, who was unable to do it himself.
Kant was a happy young man. He had spent a decade pondering deeply on morality and at the end of that period produced his magnus opus - On Duty, The Categorical Imperative. He described in very much detail on the fundamental requirement of unbreakable rules in ethics. He was now even jollier than he used to be.
He wandered out of his humble home one day. He first encountered an old lady. He was about to say hi when all of a sudden, a robber grabbed the old lady's purse and bolted. A policeman was nearby, the policeman saw the whole thing, but did absolutely nothing. The cop proceeded to smiled at Kant. Kant, confused, smiled back. That was that.
A couple of weeks later, Kant was again out of his house. He walked past his favorite restaurant. All good, nothing amiss. He heard screams and when he turned to look, a group of 4 men were assaulting another person. It was quick, the victim was dead. A police car! The cop looked at the victim sprawled on the pavement, and that was it. The cop did nothing and simply drove off.
Kant was deeply puzzled by these two events. There seems to be no laws around here, he concluded.
Third wandering: He was strolling the streets, he saw something he really wanted. Kant being Kant, Kant he thrust his hands into his pocket to look for his wallet - he wanted to pay, that was the rule, at least that was how it was supposed to be. No wallet, he'd forgotten to bring it with him.
His mind raced back to the old lady, theft, the dead man, murder and how the police did absolutely nothing. An idea! Maybe I can do the same, thought Kant. He slowly edged towards the something, palmed it! No one noticed! Good. He made his way to the exit, opened the door and came face to face with two men in blue. One had handcuffs ready, the other said "you're under arrest sir."
Kant was shocked & bewildered. He recognized the two police officers from the last two incidents he'd witnessed. "But, but," Kant stuttered, "what about the old lady, the murdered man?" The two cops looked at Kant, "sir, since you're so fond of rules, the city's decided that the rules apply to you and you alone! Now, if you'll come with us to the police station."
Kant was a happy young man. He had spent a decade pondering deeply on morality and at the end of that period produced his magnus opus - On Duty, The Categorical Imperative. He described in very much detail on the fundamental requirement of unbreakable rules in ethics. He was now even jollier than he used to be.
He wandered out of his humble home one day. He first encountered an old lady. He was about to say hi when all of a sudden, a robber grabbed the old lady's purse and bolted. A policeman was nearby, the policeman saw the whole thing, but did absolutely nothing. The cop proceeded to smiled at Kant. Kant, confused, smiled back. That was that.
A couple of weeks later, Kant was again out of his house. He walked past his favorite restaurant. All good, nothing amiss. He heard screams and when he turned to look, a group of 4 men were assaulting another person. It was quick, the victim was dead. A police car! The cop looked at the victim sprawled on the pavement, and that was it. The cop did nothing and simply drove off.
Kant was deeply puzzled by these two events. There seems to be no laws around here, he concluded.
Third wandering: He was strolling the streets, he saw something he really wanted. Kant being Kant, Kant he thrust his hands into his pocket to look for his wallet - he wanted to pay, that was the rule, at least that was how it was supposed to be. No wallet, he'd forgotten to bring it with him.
His mind raced back to the old lady, theft, the dead man, murder and how the police did absolutely nothing. An idea! Maybe I can do the same, thought Kant. He slowly edged towards the something, palmed it! No one noticed! Good. He made his way to the exit, opened the door and came face to face with two men in blue. One had handcuffs ready, the other said "you're under arrest sir."
Kant was shocked & bewildered. He recognized the two police officers from the last two incidents he'd witnessed. "But, but," Kant stuttered, "what about the old lady, the murdered man?" The two cops looked at Kant, "sir, since you're so fond of rules, the city's decided that the rules apply to you and you alone! Now, if you'll come with us to the police station."
Comments (23)
I don't agree. The new imperative, categorically applied by the police and supported by the people of the city, is clear: "Kant stealing or murdering should be acted against by the police and people, including Kant". This is the new categorical imperative.
New imperative? Categoric, as used by Kant, means universal.
According to the story:
Quoting jamalrob
That may be a "new categorical imperative" but it is not Kantian. There is no categorical imperative that applies only to one man and that man alone.
Unless that man wants to enforce his imperative categorically and relentlessly to the people.
Perhaps this will help. Kant says:
What it means for the maxim to be categorical is that it applies universally to all people in all cases without exception. It does not apply selectively to some people or only in some cases.
If:
Quoting jamalrob
that is not Kant's categorical imperative. It applies to him and to the old lady, and to the four men who murdered someone. If they were not held responsible that has no bearing on his being responsible for his actions. Kant would not have been "shocked & bewildered" that he was arrested.
Quoting jamalrob
If that thought crossed his mind he would have considered his own maxim and realized that he could not do the same.
Couldn't he have adjusted his maxim, after he saw stealing and killing could be done without punishment?
Do you think he was not already aware of this? The maxim is unconditional. It does not depend on consequences.
But why can't it be changed? Is there just one imperative possible? Is changing the maxim against the imperative?
The categorical imperative is logically determined. Any maxim that leads to a contradiction must be wrong. For example, if there was a universal law to steal the pocketbook of old ladies then the concept of stealing becomes meaningless. If it is what one should do based on the moral law then it would no longer be wrong, and if it is no longer wrong it would not be stealing.
If that rule was universalised by pocketbook stealers, wouldn't it still be wrong? What if you had to steal pocket books from old ladies and stealing them from family of pocketpickers was declared universally wrong?
The point is that it logically cannot be universalized without contradiction.
What would be the contradiction if they universalised the categorical imperative to steal pocketbooks from old ladies, which would force everybody to be a femagerontic pocketpicker?
You cannot steal from someone what does not belong to them.
I agree. The attempt to place morality on firm rational grounds fails.
Perhaps what we have been through means something different to me than it does for you. I can think of nothing that we have been through that would prevent me from agreeing with you.
As the song goes, and I tell my wife: "I must be right because I can't be wrong always".
Each to his own. My wife would never say such a thing... unless I agree with her. Which I actually do, and it's actually a good idea more than just to keep the peace... she's smart as a tack. And she is alert, and keeps track of things.
This is to put in perspective what I referred to as a "very serious issue".
I checked with my wife. She said it was okay for me to decide Kant was wrong, but it is still up to her whether he gets invited to dinner.
This is fun ending. The story probably deserves the effort involved in polishing it up. It's a good plot for one of those philosophical comic strips too. It may not be the best intro the Kantigorical Imperative, but it's a good joke on systematizing philosophers.
This is random, she swears, but I challenged her once that maybe it is not, as my friends never even once ate with us. To which she replied, there is no test for randomness, maybe I should give my head a shake and that I had better take out the garbage and wash the dishes before vacuuming the house and riding the stationary bike to generate enough electric power to watch tv that night.
If all people are forced to steal, the things stolen can still be considered property.