• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

By Root 367 0

itself when it is made a universal rule.”2 As Gob would say, “C’mon!” What does that mean? Well, Kant is saying that what matters in an action is the reason behind it. If the reason for an action could apply to everyone, then the action itself is moral. In taking the job, Lindsay acted for a reason: to make money for shopping. Since the society in which Lindsay lives is based on exchanging labor for money and money for goods, this action is, on its own, moral; after all, everybody could consistently work in exchange for money and goods. What about her second action, though? What about lying to her family? Why would Lindsay act immorally by lying about an ethical action?

Basically, Lindsay lied because of the embarrassment that she felt about working (a real job). Lindsay’s philanthropic “work” provides a clue to her embarrassment at working. She constantly strives to appear to be a philanthropist. She runs benefits and stages protests for causes that she doesn’t truly understand, and that often contradict one another (who could forget this triad: “No More Meat!”, “No More Fish!”, “More Meat and Fish!”). And her support for Hands Off Our Penises (H.O.O.P.) caused repercussive lawsuits. But for Lindsay, the cause doesn’t matter so much as her involvement in the cause. She wants to be perceived as a well-to-do woman who spends her time on charities and protests.

Kant writes, “A wealthy man is highly esteemed by his fellows because of his wealth; a needy man is less respected because of his strained circumstances.”3 For the Bluths, stealing is better than an honest day’s work—after all, it’s “built into the price.” If she didn’t steal, then “people would be overpaying for no reason.” So Lindsay wishes to hide the need for employment while seeming to afford the clothing that’s part of her wealthy lifestyle. Lindsay lies about working to maintain her own self-image and pride. She would rather spread an immoral untruth than lose social status by doing the right thing and telling the truth.

Lindsay is, if anything, consistently inconsistent. There’s a line that Lindsay isn’t willing to cross, even if she lies to her family about her actions. Although Lindsay wants her family to believe that she’s stolen the clothing, she never actually steals.

Does this make Lindsay’s actions moral, even as she constantly lies? Lindsay works hard to appear immoral to her family, even as she tries to be seen as a philanthropist to the public. She doesn’t steal even as she claims to have stolen and doesn’t cheat on Tobias while claiming that she, at some point, will. In the episode “Shock and Aww,” Lindsay has a heart-to-heart with George Michael in which she shows that she actually cares for the boy. While she is a lousy mother to Maeby, Lindsay wants to appear to be a good mother for George Michael. The inconsistency of her actions shows Lindsay to be deeply conflicted and contradictory, wanting to fit in both with society and with her family. As both Michael and George Michael say, family is the most important thing (except when it’s breakfast). Perhaps it’s only by appearing immoral that Lindsay can feel like a true Bluth (which, since she’s adopted, is harder than she thinks).

A Jealous Gob

If we wanted to figure out why the Bluths are such a mass of moral confusion, jealousy would be a good place to start. Jealousy courses through the Bluths like vodka through Lucille’s veins. Michael and Gob have been forced to compete for George Sr.’s affection in every way from Boyfights to running the business. The jealousy of the family results from Lucille’s and George Sr.’s manipulation of their children, putting them at odds with one another so as to assuage their own insecurities or failures. Lucille is jealous of Lucille 2, afraid that the latter will take the business or her children’s affection (which, frankly, wouldn’t be that hard). Even as an adult—sort of—Buster’s still jealous of his adopted kid brother, Annyong.

Kant’s discussion of jealousy ties in closely with his emphasis on the abstract character of the moral law,