The Categorical Imperative is NOT the Golden Rule
Errors of Type I (false-positive) and Type II (false-negative) can cause a discrepancy between the tests results and the true situation, calling the conclusions into question. Evaluators need to look at features of the evaluation design that effect error and take steps to avoid or minimize the more costly type of error. For example, a false-positive conclusion that a program has an effect when it really does not could mean that future funding is wasted on a program that does not work. In this case, evaluators want to protect against false-positive error as much as possible. It is a delicate choice, however, because the more that you protect against one type of error, the more vulnerable the study will be to the opposite type of error. (Statistical textbooks have reference lists of features that are likely to generate false-positives and false-negatives.)
One of them is Kant’s categorical imperative.
This essay presents Kant’s project of categorical imperative.
All humans possess the ability to reason, and out of this ability comes two basic commands: the hypothetical imperative and the categorical imperative.
This is also known as his “categorical imperative”.
Kant holds that the fundamental principle of our moral duties is acategorical imperative. It is an imperativebecause it is a command addressed to agents who could follow it butmight not (e.g. , “Leave the gun. Take the cannoli.”). Itis categorical in virtue of applying to us unconditionally,or simply because we possesses rational wills, without reference toany ends that we might or might not have. It does not, in other words,apply to us on the condition that we have antecedently adopted somegoal for ourselves.