a fake kantian in jesse armstrong’s mountainhead

hi! there is a reference to immanuel kant’s categorical imperative in jesse armstrong’s mountainhead. was the reference philosophically correct, uttered by the character played by steve carrel. please elucidate.

ChatGPT said:

In Mountainhead, Randall Garrett—Steve Carell’s character—makes a dramatic declaration: “I take Kant really f‑ing seriously!” This is triggered when his understanding of categorical morality is questioned ft.com+15time.com+15sfist.com+15. But is he using the concept correctly?


📜 What is Kant’s Categorical Imperative?

Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative is the central principle in his moral philosophy. In its most famous formulation, it commands:

“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”

In simpler terms:

  • Unconditional: It applies to all rational beings at all times.
  • Universalizable: You must only act on principles that could be adopted universally.
  • Duty-bound: Ethics is about duty rather than outcomes or personal benefit.

How Randall (Steve Carell) Misapplies It

Randall embodies a typical tech-bro rationalist mindset—cold, instrumental, and self-serving. While he brags about valuing Kant, his actions reveal a superficial grasp:

  1. Moral façade, not commitment
    • His declaration (“I take Kant really f‑ing seriously!”) comes off as performative, meant to impress peers rather than guide his choices time.com+14time.com+14nsnews.com+14.
  2. Selective universalism
    • True Kantian ethics demands universal respect. Randall, however, supports decisions like launching AI tools and even murder plots to protect his agenda. These actions cannot be consistent with Kant’s principle.
  3. Instrumentality over duty
    • Kant’s imperative treats individuals as ends in themselves. Randall and his fellow “brewsters” clearly view people as means to an end—capital gains, legacy, etc.

Bottom line: Randall says the right words but doesn’t act like a Kantian. His invocation of Kant is rhetorical rather than ethical.


Why This Satire Works

Jesse Armstrong uses this moment to spotlight a familiar trope: the technocrat flexing philosophical prestige to cloak power-hungry behavior. Applying high-minded language to selfish motives heightens the satire—and unearths the hypocrisy of characters who claim depth without substance.


🧠 Philosophical Truth vs. On-Screen Performance

  • Philosophically, his statement is incorrect. He equates mastery of Kant with self-serving utility, which is antithetical to Kant’s categorical imperative.
  • Dramatically, it serves its purpose: showcasing how easily moral language can be co-opted to justify unethical tech-power plays.

In Summary

  • Randall doesn’t truly live by Kant’s categorical imperative.
  • His claim is a performative moral gesture—a veneer to legitimize ambition.
  • This misfire is exactly the point: Armstrong is skewering the ethical gymnastics of modern elites who throw around Big Ideas without adhering to them.