In this second section, Kant goes on to establish why a categorical imperative must exist. He finds that there must be a "supreme practical principle," that is, a categorical imperative (429). He does so by speaking of a "kingdom of ends" in which is a "systematic union of different rational beings through common laws" (433). In the kingdom of ends, a person must treat other people as ends, not as means (429). Kant says that this categorical imperative, or law, is in the context of a "kingdom" because all people must be subject to the law (433).
However, Kant seems to contradict himself when he claims that in the kingdom each rational being can be seen either as a member (legislator) or a sovereign (434). The sovereign is not subject to any will and must be an "independent being without needs" and have "unlimited power adequate to his will" (434). However, Kant does not seem to further discuss the case for the sovereign; perhaps there is only one sovereign, the "Holy One of the gospel" (408). Speaking of the members, Kant says that they are subject to the laws which they, the members, legislate. Within this kingdom, where all people are subject to the law, a member cannot use other people as a means for his end, rather each person must be an end.
In the kingdom, if the laws are universal and not based on a single interest, then they are unconditional (435). Further, morality is a key component of the kingdom, becoming the basis in determining whether or not there is a categorical imperative. Kants says that each legislator must be a moral person because only through moral actions can a person be an ends (435). If each person if moral, then he acts not in his own interest, but on the interest of everyone, producing laws which can be held unconditionally. Thus, the categorical imperative that people are held together by these universal laws which are legislated by the people is true.
As Kant does not seem to further address the issue of a sovereign, does this leave open the possibility for another situation which may support the categorical imperative? Kant's claim that each person must act morally suggests that everyone will indeed act morally. It seems that as soon as not everyone acts morally, the categorical imperative is no longer true. Perhaps there is a condition under which not all people must always be acting morally for this principle to be true. Is this condition the sovereign and is he exempt from factoring into the categorical imperative?
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
"It seems that as soon as not everyone acts morally, the categorical imperative is no longer true." In regards to this statement, I want to reiterate the fact that Kant, in stating his categorical imperative, seems to suggest that we use the laws and maxims of his categorical imperative as laws in order to act morally. So, it isn't that we become moral, and that that morality leads us to the categorical imperative, but rather, that we must primarily follow the laws of the categorical imperative, and provided that we follow them in their entirety, we will have no choice but to be considered completely moral in Kant's eyes. The categorical imperative is the absolute rule by which everyone - through abiding by its maxims - would be regarded as a rationally moral human being.
I agree with the comment above. Instead of the categorical imperative become obsolete in an entirely moral kingdom, I think it becomes the opposite. It is omnipresent, and is that which governs every "members" actions. Kant seems to be advocating the categorical imperative by creating this perfectly morally righteous kingdom, in which everyone benefits from everyone else's maxims. Remember... Kant is trying to sell us something here. In this section of the reading he only elucidates his categorical imperative and tries to show us the utopia that a kingdom governed by such would create.
Post a Comment