Kant places too high a value on the human capacity to think rationally. Kant’s ideology speak to how humankind ought to act, and in doing so, speaks to the ideals upon which we strive to achieve but realistically fall short of doing. We are fallible beings with the capability to seek moral authority by way of acting rationally in a rational world. That being said, the Kantian human model turns humankind into something of a machine by discounting emotional influence on human action. As Solomon wrote of Hegel’s disillusionment with Kantian moral principles, such a character that abides by the categorical imperative would be utterly deplorable.
I find it fascinating that by divorcing emotion from rational, Kant’s ideal person is something of an outcast. We as human beings who function within a societal context and are fundamentally dependent upon interaction with each other do not discern emotion from rational judgment; indeed, emotions consistently guide rationale as a means upon which to make decisions. Though imperfect and certainly not absolute by way of its subjectivism, this system upon which we as humans decide how we go about deciding is, well, distinctly human. Perhaps Kant’s rigid moral structure would be more feasible if we view the achievement of a kingdom of ends as being achieved by a superhuman population. So long as Kant’s “ought” is an “ought,” Kant strives for humankind to achieve something above itself, something above its nature, something outside of its capabilities. Kant believes that it is perfectly feasible for human’s to act as such at this very moment by use of our rational minds; I believe that we will never sacrifice our propensity towards empathy or self-interest without losing our humanity with it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I definitely agree with what you're saying about the Kantian model being something of a machine that causes humans to lose their humanity. When we look at the decisions of others, we rarely look at the decision itself but also at the context and circumstance around it. If this were not important in the motives and meanings of actions than why would it be such an instinctive place to search for why something was done? Kant places too much emphasis on a high and lofty goal of something that people will never reach because of, as you said, our system of how humans relate to each other.
Also looking at deontology versus utilitarianism I think that humans cannot divorce the consequences from their actions from the intent.
For example if I were to steal a book from a EJ to study for the exam even if the intent is that I want to get a better grade on our exam, stealing the book means EJ no long has that book, so he will lack that knowledge. Can we make any decision without the potential consequence of our actions?
I think we choose our course of actions and look at morals almost solely on consequences.
Another example, if I think about killing Omair because he cut me in line at the rat, the first thing that stops me is that murder is punishable by death (gas chamber style), life in jail, having to go to court, and I lose most of my friends. It is not worthwhile in terms of consequences, even it is morally wrong on some universal level for all rational beings, this pales in comparison to the fact that this action would extremely alter my life.
I agree with your notion that Kant places too much emphasis on reason, undermining human emotion in the process. I think it's important to be in tune with your emotions in order to make healthy decisions. Without recognizing these emotions, an individual will surly turn into one of those "machines" that you refer to in your post.
I hope we realize the consequences of our actions here. The common idea seems to be that emotion should be an integral part of a human's judgment and actions. The problem with this lies in the fact that human emotion often leads to illogical actions. There's a reason why logos is clearly distinguished from pathos...and why the "appeal to emotion" is a logical (underline, star, general signifier of importance) fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion
I'm not saying that human beings shouldn't, or don't have emotion. But Kant is right when he says that there is a difference between the way a human should act and the way he or she does act. Oftentimes, it's because of emotion. Kant doesn't discount emotion as an integral human factor; he discounts emotions that lead to incorrect choices. Which is why the Kingdom of Ends is merely an ideal and not an achievable reality.
Take the Matrix Reloaded for example. God awful movie in comparison to the first, but that's beside the point. The Architect of the Matrix (the supposed perfect world) poses the problem of choice to our protagonist, Neo. There are two doors that Neo may walk through. One will lead to the salvation of his entire rebel city, Zion. The other leads to the salvation of his lover, Trinity. I'm willing to bet most any of us in Neo's shoes would have chosen love and completely screwed the future of human civilization. That doesn't make it a rational choice, however.
I don't agree with this last example because I think people choose their actions by evaluating the consequences of those actions (as Jon said). I think Neo might choose the salvation of the city because if he doesn't many people will suffer. This choice would obviously be rational and selfless.
But he doesn't make the rational choice. Which is what many humans do when they combine emotion and logic, pathos and ethos.
I obviously can't say for sure which door I would walk through if i were in Neo's shoes. I would like to think I would choose to save the larger portion of humanity; however, it would depend on what I considered to be rational I guess. I disagree with Kant in that I do believe consequences play a role in being rational. Although we cannot fully determine the outcome of our choices, we can be rational by at least considering the consequences. Emotion, on the other hand, is a different subject all together. I agree with many of you that it is how we relate to one another and seemingly function in society, but people who act solely from emotion are in many cases irrational.
Post a Comment