Encountering Kant
The cover image of a narrow staircase between heaven and earth is a picturesque representation of Kant’s notion of reason. On the one hand, reason must be separated from external causes and influences through the senses, i.e., reason is not subject to the laws of nature; on the other hand, it must not receive revelations or directives from a Supreme Being, as it must maintain its autonomy, i.e. freedom. It appears to be suspended between heaven and earth like the staircase, as Kant writes, “philosophy… has to be firmly fixed, notwithstanding that it has nothing to support it in heaven or earth”. Upon close examination, however, Kantian moral philosophy has its foundation in the senses. It is built from the ground up, though the latter is almost hidden from view.
If I were not already familiar with Plato and the Stoics, I would perhaps find Kant fascinating, even profound. But Kant’s moral philosophy, especially his notional of freedom, is essentially that of the Stoics, who derived theirs from Plato. Has there been no progress at all in philosophy in the past two thousand years?
Problems with Categorical Imperative
Act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”
The mathematical representation of Categorical Imperative is infinite multiplication. But, zero multiplied infinitely is still zero. Without any knowledge or sense of good and evil, Categorical Imperative itself won’t take us far in developing morality. To use an analogy, a magnifying glass enables you to see a thing more clearly, but you have to know the thing beforehand to recognize it.
Kant posits that evil is self-contradictory or self-defeating, and therefore must fail the test of the Categorical Imperative. For instance, if everyone lies, nobody would believe other people, rendering lies impossible and the society paralyzed. Therefore, “You shall not lie” must be a universal maxim.
There are a few problems with Categorical Imperative. Firstly, Kant uses the possible consequences of an action (lying) to determine its worth, the very thing he objects to; Secondly, a possible consequence does not necessarily follow, so the maxim has no imperative force; Thirdly, and more importantly, if evil is self-contradictory or self-defeating, it doesn’t need to be “multiplied” to contradict itself. Lies are not self-contradictory, they contradict the truth. In other words, Categorical Imperative is superfluous.
Rational Being as the End?
For all rational beings come under the law that each of them must treat itself and all others never merely as means, but in every case at the same time as ends in themselves.
Rationality and human being are two distinct entities, therefore they cannot constitute one sole end. To say that a rational being has infinite worth, because rationality itself is of infinite worth is a rather weak attempt to gloss over the differences between rationality and human being, between the infinite and the finite. This type of approach can run into myriads of difficulties. For instance, if some people are more rational than others, then shouldn’t the latter serve as means to the former?
To set the rational human being as the ultimate end is rather self-serving on the part of the human being. Even Reason is selfish. Why does it set itself as the ultimate end? Why doesn’t it pay deference to passion and desire, which are also part of human nature like itself?
Kant concedes that Reason doesn’t extend beyond the human mind, and therefore it is not truly universal or infinite. Reason, passion and desire are all part of human nature. If the latter two are subject to the laws of nature, reason is too. Even if one suppose that man belongs to two worlds, the world of reason and of senses, which are independent of each other, and that reason is not subject to the laws governing the world of senses, it doesn’t follow that there are no laws governing the world of reason itself.
Postscript: This post is the upshot of a stimulating discussion on ethics I had with another WP blogger, who recommended this book to me.
References:
- “Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals” at Gutenberg
- “Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals” at ebooks@Adelaide
Relates Posts: