User:RD/9k/categorical imperative; golden rule (Q50,98)

Main entry

5098. Q5098/Q50,98

      categorical imperative

      (statement about ethics versus goals) / Treat people as ends / Act to treat people as ends in themselves, and not as means / Act to treat other people as a parallel to yourself or all people as parallel to each other, with their own inner lives, needs, and goals -> isn't this basically the same thing as the golden rule? ...oh wow the summary video said it. hmm, the other golden rule Items don't specifically invoke ends or means, this idea of specifically trying to achieve a goal and Kant telling you to not do that in the worst ways. maybe this is a separate proposition.
      

      categorical imperative + ?? = The Subject

5098. Q5098/Q50,98categorical imperative / Act only according to the maxim 1) that you can will that it should become a universal law 2) that you treat the humanity in your own person and in that of others (including their consent) as an end before a means 3) that the will of each rational being enacts universal legislation reflexively 4) that in its universal legislation sovereign and subject, can be incorporated into a kingdom of ends [1] [2] -> this is the full thing including the points later found in Kant's rehashes of the same concepts.
      Kant "admits" (not that he denied it) that the 'kingdom of god' is really just a bunch of rules that bind people into society; the fabric of a "community", a Social-Philosophical System, a blue anarchism.
      points 3 and 4 basically describe "democulture". "universal legislation" is more or less the same thing, and the prior art on democulture. which is crazy. it sets up Kant as technically being an anarchist at the moment he believes that ethics can mostly hold society together without the need for a state. the only real substantial difference between the categorical imperative and democulture is that with democulture people actively try to enforce it.

Justifications for categorical imperative

618. Q618/Q618Hypothetical imperatives are bad because they cannot prescribe an action [3] -> and that's a problem why? the reason hypothetical imperatives wouldn't prescribe something for everyone is that different people are actually different and actually have different needs, and just for people to respect themselves they would have to act in accordance with those different needs, not in response to some universal imperative designed for nobody.
618. Q618/Q618The categorical imperative prevents people from maximizing outcomes for themselves [4] -> I am not sure that is true. I will have to look at it again but I am pretty sure there are ways for people to twist it.
618. Q618/Q618Suicide could not be a universal law of nature / A man claiming that suicide is an act of mercy is in logical contradiction with a code that usually acts to stimulate the furtherance of life, so this could not be a universal law of nature -> I do not see how that follows. first, I don't even see why a logical contradiction or division into two interacting things means something can't be natural. second, I don't see how Kant knows that the laws of the universe are in favor of the furtherance of human life and that isn't just something he made up. I'm sure there's more context but out of context so much of this just feels like one big chain of non sequiturs.
618. Q618/Q618The wildly unequal distribution of resources between First World and Third World or between margins and highest classes is really just a failure to behave in a way that can be universalized to every individual [5] [6] -> well isn't this anarchemistry at its finest. I will never intuitively understand why it is that people believe societies should inherently contain equal amounts of consumption. we live in a world where all forms of organizing society and growing population are turned into forms of consumption. how can you not see that? this encourages a bunch of other wasteful forms of consumption, because everything is consumption. and we actually kind of have the categorical imperative to blame for it, because people can't see the difference between it and a universalized form of predicting how behaviors scale up. the notion of universally legislating implies that if one person does something and another person does it and it's not harmful yet then it therefore must be okay. then millions and millions of people do it, and suddenly it starts actually having an impact because little did anyone know, it wasn't really a good thing the first time someone did it. metallic rules should actually be able to cover this. but everyone is also obsessed with this really stupid concept that moderation is possible and isn't just often an accident of something uncontrollable failing to get out of control. this leads us up to anarchemistry: one person taking an action to promote the flourishing of rational beings is something that should be repeated over and over and over as long as each time it's beneficial to someone else, but if it turns out the supposedly rational process of many instances of the same decision colliding is not actually rational whatsoever, then everyone needs to panic, insist that all the people independently doing a particular repeated thing are repeating it rationally, and crudely and abruptly attack the people who happened to do the most of the offending thing to cement that belief.

Golden rule and siblings

618. metallic rule
618. Q618/Q618Treat others as you would treat yourself / Do unto others as you would have them do unto you / Love thy neighbor as thyself (statement that may explicitly only extend to people in the same population; Christian Old Testament) [7] / golden rule / We should conduct ourselves toward others as we would have them act toward us (Aristotle) [8]
618. Q618/Q618Do not treat others as you would not treat yourself / Do not do unto others as they should not do unto you / silver rule (golden inverse) / inverse golden rule / golden rule (negative) [9] [10] / We shouldn't do to anyone what we wouldn't want done to us (professional skaters' association) [11] / the whole Torah (description of Torah as summarized by inverse golden rule) [12]
618. Q618/Q618Treat yourself as you would treat others / Do unto you as you do unto others / bronze rule (golden converse) [13] / converse golden rule
618. Q618/Q618Treat others how they would like to be treated [14] / platinum rule / copper rule (generic) [15]
     cultural relativism proposition + ?? = platinum rule. platinum rule + ?? = cultural relativism proposition.
618. Q618/Q618platinum rule / Accept Christians who are weak in faith [...]. The one who eats everything must not belittle the one who does not ... for God has accepted him (Romans 14:1-4) / Therefore let us stop judging one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother’s way. (Romans 14-13) [16]
618. Q618/Q618Do as thou wilt, provided that no one else is harmed / bronze rule (generic) [17]
618. Q618/Q618material golden rule, relativistic golden rule, formal golden rule [18]

Base-metal rules

618. Q618/Q618Do unto others as they do unto you [19] / Do unto others as they would do unto you / Do unto others as they would like to do unto you / Do unto others as they have done to others [20] / Do unto others as others have done unto you [21] / lead rule [22] / iron rule (generic) / brass rule (generic) [23] / copper rule (generic) [24]
618. Q618/Q618Do unto others before they do unto you / Do unto others to prevent them from doing harm unto you [25] / iron rule [26] / iron rule of sales / plutonium rule (statement that salespeople should make the first move to have control over the situation) [27]
3667. Q3667/Q36,67Act as others would / Do unto others as they would do in your place / Do not act as others would not act in your place (inverse) / leathern rule [28] / Do not what others would not "unto" (generic) / (9k) -> this one is.... interesting. it's a good rule when you actually know what others want, but a bad rule when you don't. like, you do this right, you avoid creating a Trotskyite conspiracy, you do it wrong, you turn into Hillary Clinton. sometimes this is the same as the lead rule, sometimes it's the same as the platinum rule.
618. Q618/Q618Treat others as you would in the knowledge that you may one day be them / veil of ignorance (John Rawls) [29] / plutonium rule (generic) [30] -> I never thought of the veil of ignorance as a counterpart to the golden rule but I don't know why not because they are conceptually similar.
618. Q618/Q618individual veil of ignorance / palladium rule -> I might dub this one the palladium rule because palladium is used to reset toxic substances into simpler ones. [31] [32]
618. Q618/Q618Submit all actions to God / Submit you and others' actions to God / Whatever God tells you to do you have to do instead of what anyone wants [33] / thallium rule -> this is a real piece of work. I dub this the thallium rule because it's hard to notice, durable, and deadly to all organic life including rats and people. [34] it aims to outlast everything leaving nothing but itself.
618. Q618/Q618Submit all actions to God / No, sir, I can't imagine a soft pretzel without butter; I certainly wouldn't serve you one [35]

Related

5099. Q5099/Q50,99

      Kantianism

      / (9k)

618. atomic table of behavioral rules

     (existential materialism) / existential-materialist metallic rule / periodic table of rules (sic — they're not actually quantized or periodized; "atomic" is fine though) / (9k)
618. Q618/Q618The golden rule was meant for business as much as for other human relationships (J.C. Penney) [36] / The Golden Rule would reconcile capital and labor, all political contention and uproar, all selfishness and greed (Joseph Parker) [37] -> no no no no no.
618. Q618/Q618According to Kant we must not regard workers as a working class because using a human being for the greatest common good is a violation of equally regarding everyone as ends and not as means [38] -> and there we have it. a much more honest version of why the golden rule cannot fix labor relations.
     this is a terrible fallacy to the point of probably breaking a moral rule if we had 'golden rules' that actually covered predicting the way real people act. we can start with the cobalt rule: whatever bad thing one person does can be done by everyone. from there, you need to cover the possibility that enabling one person who does bad things means enabling all people who can replicate the same bad thing, because cobalt rule. finally we quite ironically bring out the silver rule and point out that you shouldn't let happen to absolutely everyone what you don't want happening to yourself.
     gosh yeah the second thing can be called the nickel rule. do not do unto others what you do not want happening again and again and again.
618. Q618/Q618The platinum rule alone is universal / If there's anything inherently human, it's the act of respecting countable cultures as separately-operating entities and performing to other countable cultures as different from you -> the thing about this is that if it's true, Deleuze's model of groups being inseparable multiplicities is not only wrong but bigoted. a model that can't respect China as China or early Trotskyism as early Trotskyism and begin with the concept that separable groups exist and have culture and standards is broken.
618. Q618/Q618Every need for freedom emerges from physical separation or differences -> could be wrong but we have to start somewhere.
     Every need for freedom emerges from physical separation or differences + ?? = The platinum rule alone is universal.
618. Q618/Q618God reincarnating as every consciousness in existence [39] -> that idea is such a trip
618. Q618/Q618If you forget to give the stranger your coat he was Jesus (Matthew 25:42-46) [40] -> I find very little of the bible actually useful but for some reason this is one of the things in it that has just stuck in my mind over the years. the weird concept that you must give God your coat and he is everybody. it's one of the weirdest ways to phrase the veil of ignorance and yet somehow it came first.
618. Q618/Q618Individualism is logically impossible -> the claim that it is impossible to actually construct an individualism which both makes any coherent sense in reality and does not in practice turn into a collectivism.
     this.... becomes way more likely in light of the categorical imperative. Kant had to add on this weird "kingdom of ends" thing asserting a society is okay and "universally legislating" is guaranteed to lock everyone into a shared society just to make it all work. in the end if it is to function there's nothing individual about it at all.
618. Metallic rules generate "Them" / Metallic rules generate the nebulous concept of "Them" often seen in internet news articles that does not map neatly onto a class position or real-world ethnic group but is said to have in some small way destroyed society -> the concept of "Them" is one reason I have trouble taking anarchists seriously. anarchists will go around telling you that exclusions and exceptions unite people, but they won't turn around and look back and realize that everyday people are constantly creating new clusters of exceptions that don't make sense and perhaps actually are making society worse yet are totally unidentifiable. like, Peter the anarchist thinks gay, trans, autistic, and disabled people are going to save society because they're all excluded, but Pete the trucker thinks NASA scientists, queer theorists, Jeffrey Epstein, the CDC, the Workers' Party of Korea, Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos, the leadership of Israel, and Joe Biden all belong to the same demographic that's worth excluding from society, so is that group of people going to save society? those are all people that might at some point get called "Them" and blamed for enshittify (pronounced redacted)ing the world. but then they'd all face prejudice, sometimes prejudice they could argue against legitimately. charcoal anarchists, blue anarchists, and orange anarchists are all anarchists in that they all formulate society based on morality and they all try to section off low ends and high ends of society that deviate from the middle, sometimes cursing the high ends, sometimes either praising or cursing the low ends. but they all end up with different "Thems", while periodically trying to act like they actually have the same "Thems" such that everyone who is an anarchist can be united against the same Bad Thems. it's all very nonsensical. none of it makes sense.
     one of the only ways to interpret all of it so that it does make sense is that anarchists are sorting out horizontally so that anarchists of a particular factional color are only allowed with a particular color and anarchists that don't fit into that countable culture will be sorted into another countable culture of another factional color where only another specific set of things is allowed. although you can see particular strata where blue or orange anarchists are kicking out the charcoal anarchists for being unlikeable low-enders and charcoal anarchists are kicking out other anarchists for being cruel high-enders, none of the islands of anarchism is based on class or recognizes class so the way they're all actually sorting is by arbitrary moral rules of what they each think is morally bad.

Ideologies or fields

• (none)