Apologies:
John (J),
David (D),
Howard (H),
Colin (C)
The homework set
Last time we dug quite deeply into Kant's epistemology, as rooted in his Critique of Pure Reason; how he saw an inter-relationship between the deployment of reason and operations of the mind giving us greater knowledge than both the rationalists and the empiricists of the Enlightenment could manage.
While Kant had wide-ranging interests (as befits such an eminent polymath), arguably his other great work, alongside Critique of Pure Reason, is his Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals. Notwithstanding its daunting title, this ethical treatise is much shorter and eminently more readable! The translation by Lewis White Beck has a really good introduction to the work.
We agreed to focus on this work and that this in turn would provide helpful groundwork for subsequent discussion of current moral dilemmas, something we've been threatening to do for some time. A cornerstone of the work is Kant's conception of the Categorical Imperative (CI), in the context of our duty to conform to this.
There is a particularly good In Our Time on Kant's Categorical Imperative, featuring sparky Melvyn in conversation with the lucid John Callingham and Alison Hall.
Kant gives a particularly clear way of determining what is the right way to act. In discussion we can set this view that morality, based on a good will, is unconditional, against utilitarian/consequential and virtue ethics models. There are lots of good examples of whether or not the Kantian model works in IOT.
A couple of quotes from Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals to whet your appetite:
'Nothing in the world, indeed nothing even beyond the world, can possibly be conceived which could be called good without qualification except a good will.'
'We have to develop the concept of a will which is to be esteemed as good of itself without regard to anything else. It dwells already in the natural sound understanding and does not need so much to be taught as only to be brought to light. In the estimation of the total worth of our actions, it always takes first place, and is the condition of everything else.'
'In order to show this, we shall take the concept of duty. It contains that of a good will, though with certain subjective restrictions and hindrances; but these are far from concealing it and making it unrecognisable, for they rather bring it out by contrast and make it shine all the brighter.'
Some questions:
What can we take to be the essence of a 'good will'?…one which guides all our moral actions and transcends specific character traits?
What constitutes 'duty'? Its relationship with having a good will? How can we be sure that all humans have a similar sense of what constitutes duty? Does ensuring basic rights and human dignity have a role here?
The Categorical Imperative. Are there no exceptions? CI v. Hypothetical Imperatives, which have greater influence on our day to day moral decision-making?
How does the CI differ from the Christian Golden Rule? More or less realistic?
To what extent does Kant's Lutheran/Pietist upbringing influence his CI-based moral framework? What general conclusions can be drawn?
In Kant's system of determining moral decision-making and action, to what extent do you believe reason alone can dictate what we 'ought' to do? And if it can, what sort of criteria are involved? Can reaching conclusions on moral dilemmas be achieved in the same way as reason is key in reaching conclusions in science? Compare with Hume's view…and consequentialism.
Is the individual being the sole legislator for what is 'right' correct? Can we as humans ever achieve a purity of motive? And is this likely to be consistent across humans? Is there a need for some sort of higher authority? Are we really free to act, with purity of motive?
It might be worth taking a look at the different formulations of the CI and thinking which feels, intuitively, to give the best justification, or simply the most understandable definition…that is, via:
the formula of universal law…act only, etc
CI as a 'law of nature'.
Acting to treat human beings as ends in themselves, not means.
The formula of autonomy, considering every rational human as a will which makes universal law. and
The so-called Kingdom of Ends, in which there is a model for the systematic union of different rational beings under common laws.
Plenary Session
Introduction(S)
We saw at the previous session Kant proposing much more than a middle way between rational and empiricism.
Kant carried his approach into his analysis of ethics, which went against the prevailing view on religion. Hume and Rousseau were big influences on Kant.
Chronologically, there is some overlap with utilitarianism—Bentham had started writing while Kant was still alive. The behaviour of modern states tends to take the consequentialist approach in deciding the 'right' thing to do. Kant took a step back, examining the roots of our actions. He tried to produce a series of maxims to describe our duties which would guide our actions.
He believed that everyone has a duty to oneself and others. He made a number of assumptions which could be challenged, for instance that the savage has the ability to distinguish between right and wrong, which Hume argued against. He believed that every individual is an end in themselves, and that we should not exploit others.
Is it a duty of the shopkeeper to keeps his prices reasonable? Is it immoral to charge more than he needs?
Is the definition of goodwill the same across all cultures?
What do you do when the Nazis knock at your door, demanding to know where their intended victim is? CI isn’t always right—you should lie, or at least stay silent.
Are Kant's concepts of duty somewhat puritanical?
Discussion
How can we be sure that all humans have a similar sense of what constitutes duty? Does ensuring basic rights and human dignity have a role here?
We all have our own different views on right and wrong. If we always followed Kant's strictures, we wouldn’t experience any guilt about outcomes because we had always done our duty.(R)
Are we not allowed a warm glow at having done the right thing?(PN)
How does Kant account for the lack of morality in some individuals, for example, the profiteering shopkeeper?(V)
In the material world we are not free because everything has to obey the laws of nature, whereas in our mind we are free to think what we want.(S)
To what extent we are free depends on our economic situation. If we are poor, the right thing to do is constrained.(V)
Money gives you choices.(R)
The aspirations to goodness of the mega-wealthy can result in excruciating behaviour: Michelle Mone claimed that all the money squirreled away from illicit PPE deals was not for her but her children. Andrew Carnegie behaved terribly towards his workers, yet got his name associated with many good causes, including Teddington Public Library.(L)
There's a link with Rousseau, who also believed we should debate issues to resolve them. Rousseau talked of the general will. Citizens assemblies in Ireland are an example of the power of discussion.(S)
The Categorical Imperative and the Golden Rule
The rigidity of Kant's moral system is controversial, for instance on dishonesty. As a human, you are constantly taking other factors into consideration when deciding whether frank honesty is the best approach. Would you, under the threat of your own death, provide false evidence against Ann Boleyn which would send her to her execution? When else would you be prepared to lie?(V)
Aristotle posed the thought-experiment of an insane man lending you an axe: after using it, do you hand it back to him?(L)
Even a maxim as obvious and attractive as 'Thou shalt not kill' has exceptions.(V)
Assisted dying is killing.(V)
What if you give them the tools to commit suicide?(M)
Abortion is killing. By all means state a general rule, but always expect exceptions.(V)
Matthew Parris wrote on 26th April in The Times: '...don’t take offence unless offence was intended; treat with suspicion offence taken vicariously...'
In Kant's system of determining moral decision-making and action, to what extent do you believe reason alone can dictate what we should do?
Kant came up with a series of maxims people could understand.(M)
Many of these maxims came from religions. There's nothing particularly new in their message.(V)
Related to the CI is the widespread use of the warning against an action: What would happen if everyone did it?(A)
Training programmes run by the organisations we have belonged to (including our families) are designed so that we don't have to think too hard when dealing with standard situations.(G)
Kant worked back from the ends he desired in order to produce a theoretical justification for them.(R)
Therefore Kant was a consequentialist!(G)
Faith seems never to be mentioned by Kant.(R)
Many of PN's religious friends resolve their moral dilemmas by wondering what would Jesus do.(PN)
People brought up in the Catholic faith, though no longer practising, can still feel burdened by guilt.(L)
Instinct tends to be disregarded in today’s society, which prefers bureaucracy and risk assessments.(V)
The individual as sole arbiter of what is right
Kant believed our guidance should come from within ourselves, not an external authority.(S)
But what about voices in our heads? The man who stabbed Rushdie claimed God told him to do it.
We all have our prejudices.(V)
Kant's concept of the intrinsic rights of man was amazing for its time.(A)
Do we become less selfish as we age?(S)
Some of us worry less as we age, perhaps because our minds deteriorate.(G)
Other topics touched on
Should religion be taught in schools? One religion, many religions, or none at all?
The strict separation of church and state in the formation of the United States compared to the political influence the Church now wields.
