I made this in about 6 minutes. I was walking around the kitchen and found some receipts that were from our previous shopping excursion that day. Then I grabbed a random technology magazine from about 10 years ago (some of the computers they were advertising are dinosaurs now!) and found a sweet picture of a guy in a kilt. My personal philosophy is that if you can work a guy in a kilt into a design project, you have a moral imperative to do so. This concept is so self-evident and universally applicable that I’m going to go ahead and proclaim that if Kant had had any experience around kilts, his categorical imperative would be far more philosophically compelling. Let’s test this out.
Kant stated the categorical imperative as such:
Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
It is clear that one must argue syllogistically to arrive at the conclusion, so let’s insert my addition and see if we can arrive at what I posit is the only source of a categorical imperative.
1. Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
The maxim here is that kilts should be used whenever possible in design. Let’s state the converse: ‘Kilts should not be employed in design.’ This would presuppose both that kilts have ontological reality as well as design-ological reality to allow for the statement of the converse. However, if the converse statement were universalized, it would negate itself as a maxim, for it would a priori render the design-ological status of kilts as non-existent, as kilts would never have been used in design, thus precluding the statement from being posited of kilts in reference to design.
2. Act in such a way that you employ kilts, whether in your own designs or in the designs of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.
That is, the use of kilts is not merely to accentuate a design but is also the intent or purpose of the design. This ‘perfect duty’ to use kilts in design whenever possible raises a host of other ‘imperfect’ duties, which we cannot explore now.
3. Therefore, every designer must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends.
This conclusion entails that the use of kilts in design whenever possible does not create an incoherent or contradictory state of affairs in which the universalizing of this maxim would negate other universal imperatives or reduce the entire system to absurdity. Let’s consider if our maxim does in fact do this. The use of kilts in design clearly improves the overall aesthetic. However, this does not render it a universal imperative. Let’s consider universalizing it by assuming that everyone had the perfect duty to employ kilts in their designs whenever possible. The result would be that many more designs (perhaps even all) would employ kilts. In this state of events kilts would be universally employed. Would this saturation of kilts in design have the effect of reducing the profound meaning inherent in such a symbol? Certainly not. The categorical imperative is not dependent upon the consequences of an act, but rather upon the rational volition of the subject. As such, the aesthetic saturation of kilts in design cannot be a part of the moral deliberation.
Hopefully it is clear that kilts should be used whenever possible in design.