Spurred by a lovely 2 hour long conversation about Kant. Oh boy!

So. It's 2:17 in the morning, and my brain is running because I have just barely concluded a roughly 2 hour long conversation with a friend of mine regarding Kant and the Categorical Imperative.

What's rather funny is that this conversation was spurred somewhat random. She and I were discussing the characters in a story that she is writing. I read the newest part for her, proofed it, beta'd, whatever. And she wanted to know what my thoughts were on the characters and their actions thus far. I think that for some reason, with my brain still stuck in "AHHHHH!FILSOFEE" mode, I immediately took a look back at the characters and began to debate their actions and the maxims of those actions in relation to Kant and the Categorical Imperative. Call me a dweeb, I'm not sure how I feel about myself anymore after this. Haha.

What really, really interested me wasn't even so much that I could look at the actions of the characters and say "Yeah, by Kant's definition, this is DEFINITELY an immoral action, wow, nifty." But rather that I could look as these actions, know their intentions, know by the categorical imperative that there was NO way these actions could ever be considered moral, and yet I could still understand the character's reasoning/rationale behind those actions. And it brought up this huge dichotomy in my head of a Kantian world and our world.

For those that are curious about the story and the characters, the actions of the characters I'm referring to are essentially revolve around using others as a means to ones own end [of pleasure or self destruction, either and both in the case of these characters, but that's a different topic]. In which case, I can not only say that these actions are immoral based on the first part of the Categorical Imperative, but the second part as well.

For the first part, if the maxims of these actions [using and breaking another human being for your own relief or ultimate destruction] were to be made a universal law, could the world we know still make sense? No... absolutely not, no way. If everyone were to act in such a manner, all trust between individuals would dissipate, all bonds and civility would fly right out the window, and society itself would even fall. Because if everyone on earth were to use other human beings as a means of their own release or happiness or destruction, then the preservation of the self BECOMES using people to stay alive or to die. One person is using you as their means, and in order to preserve the self, you would ergo use them in return. The world could never make sense. [Yes, I know, sadly that might all seem kind of ramble-y, it's almost 2:30 in the morning, cut me some slack. Let me know if it doesn't make sense and I'll do my best to explain it/work through it better.] -> This leads to the second part of the Categorical Imperative, obviously.

For the second part: The actions are completely immoral, as the second part of the Categorical Imperative emphasizes that we can only use another person as a means so an end so long as we respect them as an end in and of themselves. The actions of the characters in my friend's story do NOT live up to such a qualification, in such that their actions use the other person as a means to their own benefit with absolutely NO regard to the other's end [in essence, they take away the other person's choice of an end]. And as my friend was talking this out with me, she quickly stated "But... but Jeff isn't thinking about HER. He doesn't care... so how does that apply?" [Jeff being the user, the girl being his means to an end] That statement only reinforces the idea that he using the girl as a sole means to HIS end with NO regard to the girl's end. As my friend put it, he isn't even thinking of her end.

I don't know why this interested me so much. I got very into it and excited about it [yay, Kant?], and I feel I have typed SO much in the past 2.5 hours that my fingers might fall off soon. However, I found this huge, interesting dichotomy:

As I was reading and thinking about these characters and their actions, I knew that by the Categorical Imperative, neither of the characters' actions could be held as moral actions. I knew that - I recognized the latent immorality of them. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I sat there thinking to myself "But... But I can understand why these characters are acting this way, immoral or not..."

I'm not exactly sure what that means. Maybe it's just late. I'm not sure. But I think for me it's just a situation in my own life in which I'm beginning to see the difference between Kant's ideal world regarding the Categorical Imperative [in which, if we were in Kant's world, the actions of these characters never would have happened to begin with] and the reality of our world, in which case I understand the conditions that make these actions moral or immoral, and yet I still can sympathize and follow the characters' reasoning for their actions.



Hm. Little does my friend know, I think she indirectly helped me study for the midterm. Yay. On the other hand, am I could be completely off on some of this... Questions, comments, concerns, funny pictures? I take all.