A Kantian Critique of "Sorry" by Justin Bieber
A humorous Kantian analysis of Justin Bieber’s “Sorry” prompts broader reflection on what constitutes a genuine apology, contrasting deontological ideas like the categorical imperative with utilitarian, outcome-focused views of saying “sorry.” Commenters riff on extending high philosophy to other pop songs while also debating whether moral judgments can be made about song protagonists or should remain separate from the artists themselves. A substantial side thread questions the authenticity of the article’s authorship and artwork, highlighting growing skepticism toward AI-generated content and the reliability of AI-detection tools.
Philosophical pop‑song mashups
- Many readers enjoy the conceit and riff on it: proposing Schopenhauer/Nietzsche takes on other pop songs, Humean or Cartesian readings of additional hits, and Aristotelian takes on “lazy” lifestyles.
- Some compare the tone to known humor sites and share similar links (e.g., Socratic dialogues about other songs).
- Several say they’d happily consume a whole podcast or series in this style.
Kant, utilitarianism, and the logic of apology
- One thread argues the song’s character is more utilitarian/rational-choice than Kantian: “sorry” functions as a consequence-focused, infinite “get out of jail free” card that enables repeated wrongdoing.
- Others debate what the categorical imperative actually is, contrasting deontological duty with rule utilitarianism and clarifying different formulations (universal law, humanity as ends, autonomy, kingdom of ends).
- There’s meta‑philosophical skepticism: one commenter calls philosophy mostly nonsense and insists it can be “too late” to apologize in meaningful ways.
- Defenders respond that, from a duty-based view, you ought to apologize regardless of whether forgiveness is possible.
- Side riffs introduce Hegelian-style reflections on apologies always being temporally “too early” or “too late.”
Language, relationships, and “I’m sorry, but…”
- Multiple comments discuss how “but” often negates an apology; some recommend replacing it with “and” or reversing clause order to end on the apology.
- Others note that people also need to feel heard; omitting their side can feel risky and requires trust.
- Improv’s “yes, and” ethos is invoked as a communication strategy, with some pushback about overapplying it.
Interpreting pop songs and authorial intent
- Several stress that the moral character in the song need not be the singer; songs can be like novels with fictional narrators.
- Others counter that modern pop often blurs fiction and memoir, so assuming autobiographical content is natural.
- Metal is cited as an area where listeners obviously don’t take lyrics as literal self-description.
AI, “slop,” and article quality
- Strong disagreement over whether the piece is AI‑written: some say it “smells of tokens”; others quote an explicit human-authorship disclaimer.
- An AI-detection tool labeling it “100% AI” deepens the dispute; some trust the tool, others question its accuracy and prefer to trust the author.
- Many criticize the AI-generated cover image as low-value or in poor taste, arguing no image or a simple drawing/stock photo would be better.
- Despite AI worries, numerous readers find the essay funny, thoughtful, and well-written, though a few think it’s repetitive or overlong.