The 'Real World' of Categorical Imperatives

In light of the Epigram's recent defense of Big Brother, I think I'm gonna pitch a mild defense on behalf of the Real World. Aside from the drama, it really is an interesting study in human relations. Btw, a very interesting show is Kid Nation- its contrived in a way that seems a bit detrimental to the experiment, but fascinating nonetheless. But back to the Real World.

I want to bring out a point that really pisses me off about people. In the episode I was watching (S18E3) there was a very interesting back and forth between Shavoun and Parisa. Shavoun was bitching that Parisa was judging her (which she really wasn't) and that the only 'person' that has a right to judge is G-d. Aside from the fact of how stupid it would be to reserve moral judgement only for G-d, Shavoun was doing more than her fair share of judging. Accusing Parisa of not having a personality was described in the show as 'blow beneath the belt.'

So basically, the people with the stupid names were accusing the other of doing what they in fact were doing. And further, they 'reserved' judgement as the right of G-d.

I think that there is an important psychological point to illicit here. People see in others the faults that they have in themselves. But, its something more than that. People set up defense mechanism for behavior that they know full well is incorrect, by simply passing the buck on others. Time and time again you can see this.

People wantonly accuse others of being intolerant, coercive, stifling, etc. when it is in fact what they would like to be.

It's so difficult to deal with people like this. I want to call them out on it. But of course, you can't- because they won't even even recognize it. But, how does this relate to the categorical imperative?

It's not quite what Kant meant, but I'm starting to realize that for almost all crap that goes on in this world there is one measuring stick. If you check to see if people are consistent in their 'condemnations' of others, and see how utterly inconsistent they in fact are, then you can tell that they are wrong. This is a method that Ayn Rand 'developed' to combat communism- taking it to its extreme, it is the negation of value for non-value.

Seriously people, introspect just a little into your own lives. See if you are remotely consistent in your opinions and reasoning. I think Ayn Rand was right that this world is filled with evaders, and people who consistently twist the facts to their own benefit. Further, there is an artificial construct which benefit those evaders, where reason is considered coercion, and straight-talk is damned.