When rational beings pursue the kingdom of ends and morality, an independence of their will is established known as autonomy (Greek for self law, Merriam-Webster dictionary). Autonomous beings are self-legislating and act according to the categorical imperative, their moral actions are taken from the sake of duty alone. An autonomous person’s maxims are in accord with the universal law which is an imperative that human beings will is necessarily bound to the rule (440).
When a rational being’s goals are determined by something other than universal law, and if the will “goes out of itself and seeks the law” in the character of its object then heteronomy results (441). Kant believes that the moral imperative must be abstract from every object so that nothing and no object has any influence on the will (441). This shows that autonomy is consistent with morality and heteronomy is not.
Kant goes on to show us that there are some principles that we would mistake as a basis of morality when in fact they are heteronomous. These two principles are the empirical principle and the rational principle. Empirical principles are unsuited to serve as a foundation for moral laws, they can never have the status of universal laws of nature (442). Rational principles are also heteronomous because they do not come from the pure concept of reason (442). Whenever someone does something in order to attain something else (even if it’s happiness of any kind of desire) the person's will and freedom is determined by that something else which therefore makes it heteronomous (442).
When most people speak of autonomy they mean the way in which an individual is free, however Kant brings up the point that we are most free when we give ourselves a law. Does Kant contradict himself when he says this, or can this be possible?
I think that Kant is trying to establish a common moral law for everyone to follow. For Kant a person is moral only if he acts morally not in his own interest but in the interest of everyone. Everyone is held together by universal laws and this makes the universal laws moral. Kant tells us that an autonomous will produces a universal law for morality that everyone can follow and that a heteronomous will produces false principles of morality that not everyone can follow (441).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I know exactly where you're coming from when you have questions about Kant's idea that "we are most free when we give ourselves a law," as you mention. Just reading that sentence seems contradictory and makes you stop and think.
However, I think this closely resembles some of the debates going on about free will in general. While I don't think Kant is directly alluding to it, that notion sounds like an idea compatibilists would use to support their arguments. They would say that a person's actions are determined, but they also possess free will. In Kant's Kingdom of Common Law, the citizens all have what he calls a positive freedom to make their own universal laws for themselves but will always be bound (or determined) in this freedom to make the "right" choice.
Just like the opinion of compatibilists can seem contradictory at times, Kant seems to when he makes this argument. However, I think he knew this when he wrote it and does believe this situation can be possible.
Post a Comment