There aren’t many people in the world who have read Kant in its entirety. I am one of those who haven’t either. All that comes to mind, as a meager summary, is the famous Categorical Imperative—a sort of commandment that the philosopher coined as a proposal for a fundamental moral principle governing human behavior.
I read in the free online encyclopedia Wikipedia that in his book *Critique of Practical Reason*, he formulated it succinctly as
“Act only according to that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”
To understand more—and I still haven’t read Kant—I ask the “artificial intelligence” application developed by OpenAI Global, which, after a “non-profit” start, is now closely tied to Microsoft Corporation, among other companies and investors belonging to Big Tech.
Although ChatGPT is losing its quasi-monopoly position—until very recently accounting for 77% of visits, today with a market share still above 50%—I consult its free chatbot about Kant. Its response, summarized at my request, is almost as categorical as the philosopher’s.
The screen displays: “Immanuel Kant argued that the human mind does not know reality as it is in itself, but as it appears organized by our ways of perceiving and thinking. In ethics, he maintained that an action is moral when performed out of duty and according to principles that could apply to everyone, an idea expressed in his famous ‘categorical imperative.’ He also asserted that people must always be treated as ends in themselves and never merely as means, and that true freedom consists in acting rationally in accordance with moral laws that one oneself recognizes as universal.”
I think of the hours Immanuel must have spent in his cold surroundings in Prussian Königsberg and the seconds it took the most modern technological device to give me this answer, which I assume to be accurate and true.
But since I doubt the ethics of the company that developed this technology, I decide to look into another source. I go to Lumo, an app developed by the Swiss company Proton AG, which prioritizes open source and is considered trustworthy by users critical of digital corporate commercialism.
This bot, after I ask it the same question, tells me: “Immanuel Kant revolutionized modern philosophy with his critical thinking, proposing that our knowledge does not conform to objects, but rather that objects adapt to our innate mental structures. He distinguished between the phenomenal (what we can experience) and the noumenal (the inaccessible ‘thing-in-itself’), establishing that space and time are a priori forms of our sensibility. In ethics, he formulated the categorical imperative: to act only according to maxims that can become universal laws and to treat people always as ends in themselves, never as means. His philosophy is structured around three faculties—pure reason, practical reason, and judgment—and defends moral autonomy as the capacity to establish one’s own rational laws, thus constituting one of the most influential foundations of contemporary Western thought.”
I must admit the obvious overlap between the two systems, and I am on the verge of being satisfied by granting full validity to these statements.
However, I tell myself: I must at least go to a library and pick up one of Kant’s books, holding it in my hands and trying to read it—at least for half an hour, about ten times longer than my previous consultations took.
The Visit to the Library
Upon entering the modern building of my city’s public library, I am delighted to think of how much human knowledge, how much determination and faith are contained in the thousands of volumes before me. I go to the counter where a kind person assists me, trying to help with my somewhat uncertain search.
“I’d like to read something by Kant,” I tell her. Somewhat surprised by the breadth of my request, the librarian tells me they have a varied selection of the philosopher’s works, along with a large number of scholars who comment on his writings. However, she takes pity on my ignorance and says, “If you’d like and don’t want any intermediaries, you can start with one of his most important works, such as Critique of Pure Reason. “We have it in the original German, but also in four other languages, including Spanish. But let me check which copies we have available,” she concludes.
I wait for her to check on her computer, and she tells me that, indeed, the work is available in Spanish for reading on-site. “You should go to section F, where the philosophical works are. Another colleague will help you there.”
Now better oriented and with the volume in my hands, I begin to delve into the somewhat enigmatic mental world of the German thinker. The sheer length—just over four hundred pages—already overwhelms me, and I realize that this is just one of his works, the one dedicated to the possibility of knowing through human consciousness. I think that, to a small extent, this is what I’m trying to do, but I realize that beyond some random, primary thought, I won’t be able to glimpse anything of Kantian thought in such a short time.
Worse still, I hear myself say that it would be absolutely dishonest to believe that “now I’ve really read Kant.” And finally, I notice that such intellectual audacity suffers—multiplied many times over—from the very same flaws of bias that I usually attribute to artificial intelligence applications.
That being the case, I leave the library completely defeated and mired in a relativism from which I gradually extricate myself until I reach my home and sit, once again, in front of my computer.
More Concerns
It occurs to me to try again, and I do so with the app I consider closest in concept to my ideas, Lumo.
I type: “What would Javier Tolcachier, the author of this article, ask Kant if he were alive?”
Although the bot initially confuses me with another person—a psychiatrist and writer of the same name who has since passed away—its response is nonetheless interesting:
“If Tolcachier could ask Kant something, he would likely do so from a perspective that questions the universality of reason in favor of the singularity of lived experience.
And after several hypothetical inquiries, it summarizes: “Tolcachier’s central question would be, in essence: Is it possible to live a full and authentic life by following universal rules of reason, or does true freedom lie in the ability to transgress those rules to construct a unique personal meaning?
Tolcachier, with his approachable and sometimes ironic style, would likely see in Kant’s rigor a beauty, but also a gilded cage that could stifle human spontaneity. He would ask him whether reason is the only path to truth or whether emotion, dreams, and madness also have their own logic and dignity.”
Even though the professional I consulted—whom I do not know—seems relatively close to my existentialist and humanist sensibilities, it is obvious that I should clarify my true identity to the machine. Once the error is explained, the app returns something far more appropriate, though still deficient.
“Mr. Kant, you elevated human dignity by establishing that every person is an end in themselves and never a means. However, in the real world, where millions are treated as commodities, tools, or statistics, your ‘categorical imperative’ seems to remain at the level of individual goodwill.
My question is this: Is it enough for each individual to act morally according to reason to transform a system that generates violence, exclusion, and structural inequality?
Shouldn’t practical reason necessarily lead us to political and social action to eradicate systemic violence, or do you remain within an ethics that is too abstract to touch the roots of human suffering?”
To conclude the exercise, I do the same with the corporate bot, which responds as follows:
“If Javier Tolcachier could converse with Immanuel Kant, he would likely ask him how a universal ethics can be applied today in a world rife with inequality, violence, and media manipulation. He might also challenge him on whether reason and moral duty are sufficient to transform society, or if it is necessary to incorporate a more active dimension of compassion, nonviolence, and collective social transformation. From a humanist perspective, perhaps I would question whether Kantian individual freedom can be fully realized as long as economic and political structures that limit human dignity exist.”
Even as I manage to glimpse flaws in the limited logic of machines, I feel somewhat disheartened by the defeat of my critical prejudice, which I thought would emerge triumphant and unscathed from this fictional dialogue.
I decide I must return to the library and delve deeper into the cognitive problems posed by artificial intelligence so that I may have stronger arguments against the public’s naivety regarding these alluring technologies that seem to contribute so much to the democratization of knowledge.
Weeks later, I return to the library, comforted by the thought that the attentive and friendly smile of the person who served me so helpfully the first time awaits me there.
But as I step through the revolving door and head toward the help desk, I am in for a huge surprise. The employee is no longer there. In her place is an electronic kiosk whose screen invites me to select my language and, in perfect Spanish, asks me: How can I help you?
