wex@ittvax.UUCP (Alan Wexelblat) (08/11/83)
Paul has attempted to answer some of my objections to Kantianism, but in the process, I think he has created more problems. From Paul Torek: First, the limited good example. Suppose a certain good is indivisible, and there is only one of it, so only one person can enjoy it. Still, the maxim "first come, first served" is universalizable in this case. If everyone followed this maxim, there would be no conflict as to who could use the good -- it would be whoever discovered it. This is a good example of why I assert that Kant's universality principle is irrelevant. Specifically, it allows one to construct maxims which may pass the four-point test, yet still not be useful. Paul's rule of "first-come first-served" seems to be an advocation of rule-of-the-strongest or of the fastest, or what have you. Are we to consider ourselves moral because one of our equally-deserving "contestants" is somehow handicapped, and therefore his opponent reaches the good first? What shall we say in the case where we are arbiters of the allocation of this good, and we know that two persons exist who are in all relevant respects alike, EXCEPT that one of them does not know that we possess this good. We are aware of him, but he is not aware of us. Shall we simply hand over the good to the other individual, and call ourselves moral as a consequence? Perhaps it is the case that we must do exactly that. HOWEVER, we would (in my opinion, and in the opinion of many of Kant's critics) be mistaken in calling ourselves "moral" for acting thus. Next, operation rescue the loved one. A universalizable maxim is "other things being equal (e.g. equally unknown), choose the loved one." No contradictions arise if everyone follows this maxim. True, that's a universalizable maxim. But it's not a good one. Shall I say to the reporter who asks me why I rescued my wife, "Well, all other things were equal, so it was right to rescue her"? Or shall I say, "Because she was my wife, idiot!" and expect that this was sufficient explanation? And what if all else is not equal? What if the other person is somehow "slightly" more "important"? (I use quotes here because I can't conceive of any way of quantifying them -- a major flaw in the maxim.) Shall I then say (to that same reporter) "Well, this person was slightly more important, so I rescued him"? And should I call myself moral for that? It seems that there is something fundamentally wrong here, although I admit I cannot put it into concise verbiage. Kant *does* consider happiness important, in fact, Hoffman quotes another Kant scholar as saying "Kant speaks ... of the happiness of others as a categorical end." (Hoffman, p.68) I assume that the quoted scholar knows what he's talking about. I'm sorry I've never heard of Mr. Hoffman, however, the modern philosopher Bernard Williams (that first name may be wrong) has put forth a convincing argument that Kantianism is not only anti-happiness, but in fact is anti- human life (it's called the "rational suicide" argument). I have the book, but not with me. If there is any interest, I will pick up the book this weekend, and provide either a reference or a summary, as needed. As far as wishing to speak of moral actions motivated by love, I'm not sure. I admit that I am not sure either. However, many philosophies (especially Christianity) speak at great length on the subject of good (ie moral) actions as being motivated by love. Now there are very few points of agreement between myself and Christian philosophy, but this is one. I think that the sphere of morality covers all actions we wish to call "good." Therefore, a "good" action must be moral. I think Kant clearly neglects this. (Admittedly, it's deliberate, but that's a bug not a feature.) ... it takes all my money to learn, so that I may later earn ... Then you realize that, by Kantianism, you are being immoral? Just look at what would happen if everyone followed your maxim (spend all my money on education NOW, so that I can earn more money LATER)! This is an excellent example of a good maxim (become educated) which becomes ludicrous by virtue of the universality principle. In fact, the universality test extols pure altruism. ...Everything he did would mesh perfectly with the four-part test, ASSUMING THAT HE (or only a small group) WAS THE ONLY ONE ACTING THUS. Paul correctly points out that I did not say what I intended to say here. What I mean to say is "Altruism is an example of the incorrectness of the fourth step of Kant's test, since it leads to the stalemate I've described." What got me confused was that Kant (in his original works) used altruism as an example of the \correctness/ of his principle. It was a later philosopher (whose name I forget) who pointed out the deadlock (in an essay called something like "What do Angels do?"). (a question I posed in my previous article:) What does it mean to treat a person as "an end"? (to which Paul replies:) A good question -- I don't know. And once we know, we have to ask whether Kant justifies the requirement to so treat people. I should have clarified the question: The point is that Kant never provided a clear answer, and this has caused most philosophers since then to discount this formation of the categorical imperative as being too weak to defend. Paul then goes on to point out that Kant assumes that if one wants to base a universal morality upon maxims of action, then these maxims must be guided by an a priori imperative. The problem is that Kant does not provide any proof that A) this is the only way to achieve a rational morality or B) that morality should be based solely on rational maxims. As I've pointed out above, Kant parts company with the majority here, and the issue is still being debated. I myself lean towards the view that any Kantian system is necessarily incomplete, but that's not what I wish to argue. What I wish to argue is that Kant's specific system contains inescapable flaws. --Alan Wexelblat decvax!ittvax!wex