Kant begins by telling us that there are three imperatives that we must be aware of. The imperatives are techincal (belonging to the art), pragmatic (belonging to welfare), and moral (belonging to free conduct as such, i.e., to morals).(26-7) He then poses the question of how these imperatives are possible. To answer the question, Kant begins to describe the relationship between the wills to the end and the means or actions that allow us to arrive at this end. This theory is described as being analytic, as the logic concerning the means and the end is a linear process. We initiate the actions or the will to accomplish a specific end, knowing that the "proposed result can come about only by means of such an action..."(27) Therefore, the course of action involving the means and the end, Kant concludes, is analytic because the end is acquired through the means. Here, I agree with Kant because we have situations where this is true. For example, if Michael Phelps wants to be the best swimmer in the world, he knows that he must spend 12 hours in the pool each day to achieve the highest level of swimming. Phelps desires an end (greatest swimmer), therefore he desires the means to that end (swimming 12 hours per day).
On the other hand, there are no precise imperatives that we can use to determine the concept of happiness. In this case, it is similar to the case above in that "whoever wills the end also wills the sole means thereto which are in his power."(27) In simpler words, to desire an end is to also desire the means which will accomplish that end. In order to obtain or achieve happiness, we must be willing to do things which will give us the feeling of happiness. Happiness changes from person to person, having no definitive substance. Kant states that this is true because happiness is unexceptionally emipirical. We find happiness through the experiences that we have gone through in the past, which decides what we choose to do in order to experience happiness. He goes on to say that no specific imperative can make one person happy. I agree with the fact that one imperative cannot make a person happy, since one imperative will sacrifice health or happiness of another imperative. For example, if I decide to eat a chocolate cake, that will achieved by the pragmatic imperative, which will deal with improving my welfare or happiness by fulfilling my desire to eat the cake. At the same time, this imperative will be contradicting the pragmatic imperative because of the extremely detrimental effect it will have on my health, which is directly correlated to my welfare and well being.
The moral imperative is the most difficult because there is no action or imperative that can show there is a moral imperative present. The moral imperative would not be present in this case if there was anarchy and no law. Moral imperative is present because we know the actions will lead to a desired end, along with the punishment that follows the action. If someone wants to kill a person on the street, they desire the actions that will lead to the results they wished for. Yet, this person does not kill them because of the law that makes it illegal to murder someone. If this statute was not in effect, the desired end could be achieved without hesitiation, proving that absence of moral imperative.
This leads us to the question: is it necessary law for all rational beings always to judge their actions according to such maxims as they can themselves will that such should serve as universal laws? I say no. Acting as rational people, we can all agree on universal laws, such as thou shalt not kill, steal, etc. How do these laws apply to people that are homeless or cannot afford to survive under this universal law? They can justify stealing a loaf of bread by saying that they need to survive as well as provide for a hungry family. Here we see that even though there should be one standard of universal law, people can create different levels of universal law to justify their survival in this world.
The question I pose is: Are their different levels of universal law for different kinds of people? Or is it that there is one universal law with people that either abide by it or break it? Also, can a moral imperative be judged immoral even if it results directly in your survival? Are there imperatives that triumph or come before other imperatives in our daily lives?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I agree with Kant's answer to his own question regarding the three imperatives and whether they are possible. His answer being that in order to achieve a known end it must be first acquired through the means. I thought Mike's example about Michael Phelps was very helpful. I think a lot of situations in our lives go through Kant's process of the end being acquired through the means, such as; doing well on a test is achieved by putting in X amount of time in of studying. I also have a question. When you said that,"one imperative cannot make a person happy, since one imperative will sacrifice health or happiness of another imperative," does that mean that one must possess all three imperatives to be happy?
I'd have to say that I disagree with the Michael Phelps example as being helpful. I understood Kant's words as stating that the end itself is of no significance when trying to understand the moral imperative; and thus, the goal of Michael Phelps becoming the best swimmer as the reason for his 12 hours of swimming as day is not a metaphor for what Kant was saying because Kant's focus was on the means itself, not the end (whereas Michael Phelps' focus resides in the end). [ Teleological-Deontological distinction]
I would have to agree with the previous comment that the Phelp's example was not particularly helpful. It did illustrate an example and point made by Kant, but in my opinion somewhat ineffectively. It is a great example of a hypothetical imperative, but not the a priori categorical imperative that Kant seeks to show as the right one. This was not stated, however it is right to agree with Kant in saying that this is how the majority of people operate on a daily basis. To answer the question posed, Kant would say there could not be different universal laws since then they could not be universal laws. It is a prisoners dilemma, the universal law only works if everyone works within it, but sadly we do not know what others are thinking or why they commit their actions. The fact that people have to steal in certain situations to survive is merely an aftermath of a society not being based off of universal law. The second question is a catch 22 because it is an imperative to survive, but also not to murder or steal, and sometimes these cross and to do one is to disregard the other. So yes in our daily lives, i feel certain imperatives triumph over others
To address your ending question, Mike, I believe that the concept of a universal law of "different levels," "for different kinds of people" is inherently illogical. Kant presupposes that we need a law that is universal; so this whole talk of 'can a bum steal some bread to feed his dog? come on bro he's gonna die!' is irrelevant because universal moral law applies for all individuals in all cases/situations. Furthermore, hypotheticals and anything to do with the performance of an action for an intended end is inappropriate or unsuitable for Kant as the basis for an action that may be deemed morally worthy. In some sense it becomes clearer to judge an action in this way: if it's done of duty alone, it has worth; if not, it does not. But in another sense identifying whether or not it was done solely out of duty becomes immensely difficult if even possible.
To answer vlad, I do believe that tackling this question is tough. I think what I was trying to say is that even though Kant says that there is a moral law that is applicable to people in every situation, more often than not it is broken. For example, if everyone held themselves by these standards of moral law and doing the right thing, we would not need government or rules telling us how to live our lives. On the surface, moral law seems like an easily attainable goal. But if this was true, there would not be so many higher authorities governing how we live today.
Post a Comment