Kant’s moral philosophy is definitely a groundbreaking work and holds true in many areas, but would we really be better off in a Kantian world. The short answer is no. Let us take a look why. Kant’s categorical imperative asks one to consider what if everyone acted in the manner you do and what outcome would come from that. His classic example is lying. If everyone lied, communication would become worthless. Now this is certainly a good concept but Kant writes it without exception meaning one can never lie for any reason. Today in class we talked about the example of sheltering Jews in Nazi Germany. Now Kant tells us never to lie. In addition to the categorical imperative, Kant also says we can never know the ends of our actions so lying couldn’t actually help. But this is false. While we never know the exact ends but we could take a pretty good guess. Kant is obviously not a fan of statistics. And I’m sure statistics would show those who lied were most successful. But those who argue say that if we followed Kant there would be no Nazi Germany. While this is true our world would be much different, and in what I could only describe as worse. We would also have no freedoms, at least of how we think of them today. Kant defines freedom as lack of interference from the outside world, a very different concept than what one might find if they look up freedom in any modern dictionary. Kant then goes on to call out many actions we do today as immoral. For example, not giving to charity if you can is immoral and not making the most of a talent is immoral. And just being lazy is immoral. And this is just the beginning. So basically Kant is trying to spell out what we should and shouldn’t do to an extreme extent. While others have tried to tell us how to behave, Kant’s agreements, especially considering they are without exceptions, are overly extreme. Therefore, I could not agree with Kant on his view about not lying to the Nazis because it relies on so much else which I cannot agree with. As humans we were born to explore and make our own ideas. Kant does recognize our rational thought but then tells us how to act.
What you say may be true, but compared to the other philosophers we have discussed, Kant's may be the least extreme of them all.
ReplyDeleteFor Machiavelli we learn that the Prince's duty is to lead one's nation, but remember what the Prince tells us about the importance of the populace. We are important to the prince only to the extent that we are devoted to him (or her now a days) but also reminded that fear is what keeps us in line. It would be okay for the prince to slaughter some of his own people, so long as it didn't incite a riot.
For Martin Luther, the world would be a quiet place because everybody would be hiding in the closet (literally not figuratively) afraid to sinning. Plus the whole world would be uniform in religion, which would be boring.
Hobbes would follow along similar lines as Machiavelli, only more extreme. Since Hobbes himself accepted that a true commonwealth is like a graph approaching an asymptote, people would continually be overthrowing the leviathan. The world would be nasty, brutish, and short.
Under Locke's ideas, we would still own slaves and make excuses for owning another human being so that we could sleep at night. Also people would be shot on sight for picking an apple on somebody else's property.
For Rousseau everybody would be running around naked, following their "geniuses" not to mention that there would be a lot more morally objectionable professions, such as prostitution rise. The world would be hilariously terrifying.
In the case of Kant's world, if we all were truthful, and we had no reason to commit crime because our morals would keep us in line, it would be more peaceful place. This is not to say it would not be an extremely awkward place to live, just that it is better than having a ruler who can slaughter you and justify his action.
I agree with Stephen. I think that while Kant's world would be awkward, there are others who's views are more extreme. Personally I think Luther's sounds the most extreme to me, because it sounds the most impossible. If we were all trying to sit around and not sin, I think we would end up dying from malnutrition or whatnot. I think it would be completely impossible to do so.
ReplyDeleteSpencer, I will choose to ignore the insult that you hurled at me--presumably without any conscious intent--in this post.
ReplyDeleteSpencer, a couple things to consider regarding your post. First, Kant's definition of freedom is neither validated nor invalidated by comparison to a modern English dictionary. Indeed, the latter are written by people in society at a certain time and place; if you look at the OED you will see their own recognition that the definitions of words are not objective or eternal but specific to the generation in which those words are used. Likewise your comments that Kant's statements regarding morality are unpleasant: this does not say anything about Kant's system or his arguments, but rather something about your personal opinions. Similarly with Steven and Hannah's remarks regarding "Kant's world" being "awkward." If we are to take this hypothetical scenario seriously, we have to do it all the way down, so to speak, and without any admixture of our personal feelings or prejudices. Thus, in a world of perfect rational beings who are immune to or incapable of being enslaved to their inclinations and thereby act solely morally, it is hard to imagine anything like an "awkward" experience.
ReplyDeleteThe point of this comment is to remind everyone of the difference between the thinker/system and our perception of the thinker/system. The latter is always already a standpoint with its own philosophical history, and this always threatens to infect and affect our interpretation of the thinker. The trick is to suspend our perception of the thinker/system as much as possible in order to understand the thinker on his own terms, or rather to consider our own standpoint in our reading of the thinker/system in an attempt to factor it into our understanding. While it is impossible to suspend or escape ones own self, one can recognize ones personal prejudices in order to assist one in understanding a disparate viewpoint. Make sure that you are (dis)agreeing with the philosopher in question rather than a convenient strawman.
After rereading it, I see how my post was more of my perception of the thinker/system and of the think/system and will not make the same mistake again.
ReplyDeleteI assume "insult" I hurled was about lying and your views on it. I know I was unclear but the line was meant to be read more like this. "And I’m sure statistics would show those who lied [to the Nazis about harboring Jews] were most successful [in protecting themselves and the Jews they were harboring]. It was in no way meant to be a general statement. While I do think lying is OK sometimes, I do not think those who do lie will be more successful those those who never lie.