Firstly, Kant commences the discourse of this section in explaining the respect that all humans owe to other human beings. He specifically states from the start that, “Every man has a rightful claim of respect from his fellow men, and he is also bound to show respect to every other man in return” (Metaphysics 462). In this specific section, Kant will also go on to say how respect is a moral duty that can be compromised by the characters of pride, slander, and mockery, but are also essential to friendship; friendship, which is also a duty but in a more realistic manner than we have previously seen in Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics.
Kant formally makes the claim that all humans are required to show respect, due to the fact that humans need to maintain the dignity that is existent among humanity (Metaphysics 462), which also shows a sort of worth within our culture. But it is not only the respect of other people that humans must follow; Kant explains that respect for the law is the respect that precedes any other kind of respect. If one respects the law and the universal maxims in society, it is implied that one will also have respect for humanity. As a duty, the respect that one gives to mankind and to the law of the land is described by Kant as the “respectable” and “decent” thing to do (Metaphysics 464). On the other hand, the characteristics of pride, calumny, and mockery are described by Kant as a loss of respect and dignity for humanity (466). Kant specifically states that these characteristics “cast a shadow of worthlessness upon our species…” (466). Therefore, respect is a duty among all humans, which represents our dignity and, in a way, our superiority among all other species that exist on the Earth.
Finally, Kant describes friendship and its relationship with respect in the last discourse of this section. What is more interesting in this section, though, are the differences that can be seen between the arguments of Kant and Aristotle on the matter of friendship. The main difference is Kant’s perception of “reality” in friendship. He maintains the argument that a true friendship, the union of two people, is realistic and may not always be moral, but he agrees with Aristotle in stating that there are no true models of friends amongst us (470). He maintains the realism in his argument in stating that, “it is a burden to feel oneself tied to the destiny of others and laden with alien responsibilities” (470). Therefore, Kant agrees that fights are common among friendships, but what makes a friendship truly moral is the mutual openness between the individuals (471), not that the individuals have to be mirror images of each other as Aristotle believes.
I have come to agree that Kant’s realism within his arguments are more perplexing to the notion of respect in our modern world, but I also have to question his statement that it is an “outrage to inflict punishments” among others (463). Not all humans can follow a morally just life, but that doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t try. Isn’t punishment a method in which we are able to put other humans on the right track to happiness (it does not only have to be physical punishment)? We sometimes use war as a type of punishment; are all types of punishment wrong in the eyes of Kant?
15 comments:
I would agree with you Anthony when you say, “Kant explains that respect for the law is the respect that precedes any other kind of respect”, but I would disagree with you notion that every human must have respect for other human beings. I understand what Kant is saying when he says people who respect the law and the maxims of society, they will then respect humanity. The only question I have with this is, why does someone who respects the law and the maxims of society have to respect someone who has gone against the moral laws and therefore has not respected you because he has already gone against the moral law? To try and answer your question Anthony, I think there are certain instances in which punishments are not wrong in the eyes of Kant. However, it all depends on what the punishment entails. For example, Kant believes that punishment is okay when it fits the crime that was committed. He believes in the Retributivist theory which basically emphasizes the old saying “an eye for an eye”. He would consider it an outrage if the punishment did not fit the crime. However, I do not know what he would say when the crime cannot have a equal punishment.
I like the "eye for an eye" idea. As long as it fits within the morality of a universal law and maxims, I think that Kant would have to believe in some sort of punishment. But I would also like to express that it is not MY idea that all humans must be given respect; this idea is according to Kant. Kant believes that all humans are due a certain amount of respect due to their human dignity and also the formulation of humanity, as stated in one of his five formulations of the categorical imperative.
I agree with you that punishment could be seen as a method to promote happiness because it teaches a human how to make better decisions in order to be a better person which would ultimately result in happiness. However, if Kant believes that punishments are not moral, it is never right to do. I believe that all types of punishment are wrong in the eyes of Kant because of how he expresses his need for a universal moral law. I think that Kant would say that the act of punishing is wrong no matter what and that itself is its own end. It is irrelevant whether or not punishment might lead to happiness because it is not a universal morally accepted action.
Not to belabor the point, but from how I interpreted Kant, he seems to agreed with almost all of your points. I understood pp 463-4 as meaning that punishment is not only permitted, but encouraged, in so much as it does not "dishonor humanity itself" and so much as it "does not deny the wrongdoer all moral worth," i.e.; human dignity or respect.(463 & 4). For instance, Kant states that "letting someone be torn to pieces by dogs" would dishonoring humanity, because it does not respect the person as having human dignity (defined as having "no price, no equivalent for which the object of valuation could be exchanged"). Furthermore he mentions that it in order for the wrongdoer to mend his ways it is necessary to preserve the assumption of moral worth of the reproached, because if a person is denied of having understanding, how could they then be presumed to learn from their mistake(s).
The purpose of punishment is for correction, and if one is to be corrected they must first be assumed to have moral worth (in order that is can be assumed that they have the capacity to learn from their mistakes); therefore, any punishments which go against the presumption of moral worth and defame humanity are foolish because anyone without moral worth could not learn from their mistakes making their punishment useless. Kant does, however, make an exception for assaults on others for protection, etc.
I agree with the aforementioned comment; Kant makes it seem as though respect is always needed in order to maintain human dignity, but he also hints to certain wrongdoers in the system. Furthermore, respect can be seen as a universal law, but I believe that punishment comes in before the creation of the universal. Punishment, being a form of correction, can be applied before respect is given; punishment corrects the actions and maxims that appear before the universal in my opinion.
To answer your question I also think that not all types of punishment is wrong in the eyes of Kant. I think he believes that if the punishment is in accord with the universal maxims then it's permitted in society. However I think that Kant is trying to tell us that if the punishment goes against the universal maxim then it is wrong or that since punishment isn't moral at all it is wrong. I'm confused as to if someone does a moral act but comes off as a punishment to someone else is that still in accord with universal maxims?
I also liked your points about the similarities you made between Aristotle and Kant, especially the one about true friendship and how it's the union between two people. They helped show how Aristotle and Kant thought in a similar way.
To answer the last question, I don't believe that if someone does a moral act but comes off as a punishment to someone else that it is still in accord with the universal maxim of respect. Somewhere in this section where he talks about respect and friendship, Kant says that in order for there to be complete respect and complete friendship all things should remain equal. But he also makes the case that in friendships fights are common and that one person may feel burdened by the other. Therefore, it is ideal to think that all things will remain equal for all individuals; Kant, I believe, puts things more realistically.
I agree with your understanding of Kant in-so-far as human diginity and respect are important to our duty as human beings. But when you ask us in your concluding paragraph, "...are all types of punishment wrong in the eyes of Kant?" I can answer with an emphatic no. The quote you use finishes with, "...punishments that dishonor humanity itself" (Metaphysics 463). It is evident that Kant is referring to cruel or unusual punishments; punishments that dishonor humanity. Kant is a retributionist, which implies that one receives what they deserve, and in the case of punishment, it must fit the crime. Thus, according to Kant, punishment is allowed if it honors humanity and fits the crime.
Based on the Kant being a proponent of deontology, moral acts are in accord with universal maxims. The consequences of your actions do not matter to Kant as long as the act itself is moral. I don't think that Kant would find a moral action that comes off as a punishment upon someone else as a violation of a universal maxim because, despite the consequences, you are doing a duty.
In one of your responses, you say, "punishment, being a form of correction, can be applied before respect is given; punishment corrects the actions and maxims that appear before the universal in my opinion." I'm confused as to how a person could deliver a punishment before the universal applies to their actions. I might be interpreting your comment incorrectly, but it seems as though you are suggesting that there are preliminary actions that can be done outside of the universal law. Is this possible? If a punishment is a moral "correction" then, it seems to me that, it must take place within the universal (following a immoral action and hopefully preventing a subsequent immoral action). If anything, I believe that a punishment that is not in accordance with the universal would, in fact, confuse the punished person's conception of morality. If punishments are allowed, I think that people could interpret various other immoral actions as merely being punishments, too. For example, if immoral punishments were allowed, couldn't someone justify actions such as theft and murder as very grave punishments towards those who have wronged them? Again, I may not be understanding your point correctly, but if I am, I would be nervous to live in this world where punishments that didn't apply to the universal are allowed.
I agree with many points that Anthony brings up in his post. I see how the "realism" in a Kant friendship will ultimately lead to a "true friendship" because of the openness in the friendship. I am not sure if I understood correctly, but with respects to punishment, happiness is not an end for Kant, so I do not see where punishment is relevant. And if so, then why would Kant even bring up the idea of punishment to enforce moral lives or respect for one another? Enforcing punishment to attain respect I think is contradictory in itself.
In response to Alex's comment, I do not think that the punishment comes before the universal; it comes after the action that has occurred which may not show the dignity that another individual deserves according to Kant. Also, I am not speaking about punishments in so far as a punishment against a person that has wronged another person, this would be revenge. I am talking about punishment that goes against the moral tradition, which is a correction of the universal. And in response to Kelly's comment, punishment is relevant in Kant's argument because if someone has strayed from the universal, there may no longer be respect for the human dignity that that person is owed as Kant argues. Therefore, the question of punishment was posed in order to see if Kant would agree to such an ideal not in so far as it producing happiness for an individual, but as a means of correcting morality, or to see how far one is able to go in Kant's view to correct his vision of morality.
While I am in accord with Kant’s observation that respect of the law precedes respect of fellow man because the former inevitably leads to the latter, I don’t think that is always the case. The laws of a country may very well encourage the disrespect of fellow man, the entire Civil Rights movement was based on this notion. I believe that Kant’s observation is accurate in progressive and developed societies but when the law itself is unjust, then respect of man must take precedence. Friendship is a prime example of this because oftentimes in oppressive societies, friendships exist between groups whom the law says should not interact with one another. This is an example of respect of man taking precedence over respect of law.
Anthony, you raise an interesting question at the end of your blog. Is punishment really such a bad thing? In my estimations, I believe that punishment becomes necessary for humans to learn what is right and wrong; especially as a young child it is important for people to learn through pain. In this respect there is always the example of the young child burning themselves on the stove. This burn as a young child leads the child to understand what pain is and learn that if they touch something that is hot it will hurt; this lesson early in life seems to be indicative of how people continue to learn and also grow in the long run.
I agree with many of the comments above when they state that respecting everyone cannot be possible. Those who disrespect others do not deserve our true respect. On the other hand, Kant says that all humans essentially deserve a certain amount of respect due to their human dignity and also the formulation of humanity. In this case, we actually do respect the criminals and those who we feel do not deserve our respect. The fact that we take these people, put them before a judge and punish them (whether or not they can then pursue their happiness)goes to show that we respect them. If we did not have any tolerance for these kinds of people we would've not followed the 'eye for an eye' rule and punish them much worse.
Post a Comment