507. What Is The Categorical Imperative?

Bobby explains Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative.

[rysemus]

Kant would disagree with the golden rule though. He would see the rule in accordance with the hypothetical imperative. You are only treating people kindly because you want to be treated kindly, not just because it is the right thing to do.

[shahfaisal]

U sums up my hour of study in 2 min . 👍

[osteomalacia]

Why is he slowly moving to the left side of the screen?

[JonTopping]

The interesting thing is the Golden Rule was more specific, while the Categorical Imperative is actually vague. All you have to do is reword things slightly and you get out of the consequences of the Categorical Imperative. For example, suppose you want to steal your neighbor's car, you would never say "stealing cars is something everyone should do", but if you reword it to something like "stealing a car is something you should always do if your neighbor's name if Frank and he's been a total jerk to you and flirted with your wife". The Golden Rule, however, doesn't fall prey to that. No one wants their car stolen (except for random nefarious purposes), even if they've been a huge jerk, so then no one should steal another's car.

[vamosabv]

Thank you. You did a nice job in explaining it in a minute.

[karlreimers]

Kant is the way to go- you are in control. Utilitarianism- someone else controls you!

[warning]

Helping those who would do the same for you is no kindness, that implies helping a homeless who couldn't even trade something for your kindness isn't worth helping.

[daman]

lol it's kind of like he just ran into the room and is still trying to catch his breath a little

[thembamkwanazi]

The example about Jesus Christ makes it more easier to understand the categorical imperative

[bodyer]

If you want to know if something is right or wrong and are an atheist, forget about Kant and just think what would happen to civilization if everybody in the world done the thing you are thinking off.

[michaelfelli]

The Jesus quote "Do onto others as you would like them to do onto you" is just stupid to use alongside the Categorical Imperative. Why? What if they don't like it? Do onto others ... the Golden Rule.

What if the other party doesn't like it? Then what?