Before we get into the article, here's a quick note: I’m starting classes and courses where I mediate discussions with people across the ideological spectrum. We find common interests and goals to build bridges across divides. Send me a DM or email if this interests you.Immanuel Kant was a productivity hacker's dream. He was the 18th-century Andrew Huberman, but instead of talking about testosterone and ice baths, he spoke about the transcendental dialectic of the soul. For over 40 years, he woke up at 5:00 a.m., wrote for three hours, lectured for four, took the same walk on the same route daily, and had dinner with the same friend before retiring precisely at 10:00 p.m. His routine was so precise that neighbours joked they could set their clocks by him.But beneath this clockwork life, Kant was a revolutionary thinker whose ideas shaped our understanding of morality, ethics, and even human rights. Yet, when Kant proclaimed his ethical rule—act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means (which pretty much comes down to ‘don’t use people’)—he wasn’t just setting up shop in the ivory tower. He was laying out a universal standard for morality.But here’s the rub: can something as complex and culturally embedded as “being a good person” be reduced to a single rule? Kant thought so. Then again, who can say for sure? I didn’t know the guy, and people still debate his meaning. Anyway, cultural psychology gives us a far more nuanced picture.Universal Ethics or Cultural Relativism?Kant's categorical imperative demands universality. Lying isn’t just wrong because it’s inconvenient; it undermines the rational agency of others, a principle Kant believed should hold across all contexts.But cultural psychology tells us that morality isn’t always so clear-cut. Research by Richard Shweder and colleagues on cultural variability in moral systems suggests that what counts as “good” behaviour often depends on the society in question. Shweder identified three primary moral ethics:* The Ethics of Autonomy: Common in individualistic cultures like the U.S., where morality is tied to individual rights and harm prevention.* The Ethics of Community: Found in collectivist cultures like India, emphasizing loyalty, duty, and hierarchy.* The Ethics of Divinity: Prominent in many religious societies, where morality centres on purity and sanctity.Take lying, for example. In Kant’s view, it’s always wrong. However, studies in collectivist cultures show that lying to protect family harmony might be seen as not only acceptable but morally necessary. Also, if you’re interested in learning about how my IBS resulted in a situation which would be frowned upon in all three ethical constructs, check out Shared Washrooms.What Goodness Looks Like Around the WorldThe idea of what it means to "be good" shifts dramatically across cultures.* Japan: The concept of amae, or the dependency and acceptance of another’s benevolence, guides social behaviour. A "good" person harmonizes their desires with the group’s needs.* Greece: The ancient concept of areté (virtue) focuses on excellence and fulfilling one's potential, tying goodness to individual achievement and societal contributions.* Indigenous Cultures: Among the Lakota Sioux, being good centers around woohitika (courage) and wacantognaka (generosity), reflecting a deep interdependence with community and nature.Kant’s emphasis on universal rationality might resonate in some cultures, like those shaped by Enlightenment ideals, but it can clash in contexts where morality is relational and contingent.Rationality as Sacred, But Whose Rationality?Kant argued that the defining feature of humanity is our capacity for rationality—the ability to weigh options, make decisions, and act consciously. Without it, he claimed, the universe would be “a waste in vain and without purpose.”Yet modern thinkers like Jonathan Haidt argue that our moral decisions are driven less by cold rationality and more by emotional intuition. His Social Intuitionist Model suggests that we justify our moral choices post hoc, meaning that what feels good to us culturally and emotionally often precedes rational explanations.For example, in Western societies, prioritizing individual rights over communal obligations feels “rational” because it aligns with cultural norms. But in East Asian cultures, where harmony often trumps individual expression, rationality might favour decisions that preserve group cohesion.However, our emotions cloud how we perceive what is rational. Some people think Jordon Peterson is a rational thinker, whereas he’s also playing on the emotions of disenfranchised f**k boys (I’ve got sucked in from time to time). Some people think Astrology is rational because Astronomy wasn’t their forte, and they need a sense of control in a chaotic world. I thought asking a ...
