From: hiho@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark Peterson)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Subject: Re: Response to Richard Lee on Kant's Categorical Imperative in
Date: 10 Apr 92 19:03:41 GMT
Reply-To: hiho@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Originator: hiho@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

From article <01GIH73PFUPSCZ1518@RCNVMS.RCN.MASS.EDU>, by JIM DOWNEY <JDOWNEY@RCNVMS.RCN.MASS.EDU>:



Well, ordinarily I wouldn't, but there are a few things here that just
really need to be cleared up.  Lessee...


>>	This seems to me very workable and practical.
> 
> If you isolate a single postulate of his ethical system, it may work
> and work consistently.  But it seems to me that there is a process
> underlying Kant's approach, even in this single strand of the whole
> rope...  Kant tells us how to act...  He does not tell us why this is
> or is not ethical (nor can he using his system).  He tells us what not to
> do, but not why on that point either...  In typical German/Bavarian
> tradition of his day, he sets forth rules, which for the most part fit in
> with his cultural references, but never explains the principles or truths
> that make these rules ethical.

We are talking about *Immanual* Kant here, right?  'Kant tells us how
to act... He does not tell us why...'  Yikes.


First of all, Kant does *not* tell us how to act.  This misses the
basis of his entire approach -- a Copernican revolution for
philosophy.  Kant asks this question: if there is a universal
principle underlying morality, what is it?  If we accept his
definitions of what's involved in ethics (choice and reason), then the
conclusion he reaches is pretty reasonable.  You could, of course,
argue that good will, choice, and reason over-riding inclination are
*not* part of what we mean by ethical action, but that's not what
you've said here.

The categorical imperative is not a rule he just made up to serve as a
criterion for determining when the maxim of an action has moral worth.
It follows necessarily from the premises he assumes (good will,
willing, duty, etc.)  He spends most of his time explaining why this
particular principle *is* the one that follows from what most people
of his day thought ethics was about.

'...nor can he using his system...'  I must be completely
misunderstanding your point.  His *entire* system is designed to do
exactly this -- tell you why something is or is not ethical.

And 'never explains the principles...'  Well, I don't even know what
to say about this.  

None of what you've said here is supported by anything I can find in
the Metaphysical Foundations or the Prolegomena or the Urteils Kritik.
What have you read that could possibly lead you to these conclusions?
I've been studying this stuff for about 15 years now, and there are
certainly problems with the old boy, but the Kant I've been reading
bears no relation to the one you're interpreting here.  

I would, of course, be happy to hear your explanation.

hmm.

But, what else...


> The Kantian mode of applied ethics asks only if there is a behavior that
> fails to meet Kant's basic rules...  It does not allow the question, "Are
> human beings worthy of respect?"  Nor does it allow asking if the employer
> recognizes that the worker (in this case programmer) is worthy of respect...
> It merely states that treating a worker as a means to an end is morally
> wrong.  Kant points to a duty without ever demonstrating why there exists
> an imperative to act this way.


Now I'm even more puzzled.  What was all that business, then, about
treating humans as ends in themselves, the realm of ends, and persons
having a dignity and never a price?  And again, his entire writing is
nothing *but* a demonstration of what force an imperative must have if
there is an underlying universal principle of morality.

I hate to say it, but unless I've completely misunderstood what you've
said, you've got Kant completely wrong.

Incidentally, I'm not a Kantian by any stretch of the imagination, so
I don't want to defend his position -- but I felt a need to defend
just what his position is.  If we're going to trash him, let's do it
for the right reasons, and let's make sure we've got the right
philosophic view before we start.

Interesting discussion.


hiho


-- 
mark ce peterson   | uw-washington county  | hiho@csd4.csd.uwm.edu 
dept of philosophy | west bend, wi.  53095 | (414) 335-5200        

     The shorter the tether, the sooner the goat starves.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU