On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 08:11:58 -0700, Scott H <zinites_page@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>Kant's Categorical Imperative is, "Act only on the maxim that can
>become through your will a universal law of conduct." For example,
>lying is wrong, because if everyone lied, it would defeat the very
>purpose of trust.
>
>What if we based our maxims on something particular about one group of
>people, such as race? My maxim would be, "If it happens that I am
>white, then I may..." This appears to be a flaw in the Categorical
>Imperative.
In a way, your complaint is valid -- however, such loose ends were
tied up in the Critique of Judgment.
It may so happen that, according to Kant scholar Hannah Arendt, moral
judgments are made only about individuals, moral maxims are designed
with individuals in mind, because to view this from the viewpoint of
collectives tends to invalidate one's capacity for making judgments.
Because judgments only and always concern particulars, in this case,
particular individuals, not vast, foggy groups of individuals viewed
from some kind of a collective framework. The faculty of judgment
works with sensibility via imagination, but one cannot imagine a
collective. Or as Arendt might say, one cannot put one's feet into the
shoes of a collective. That would be to try and divest oneself of the
responsibility of judging individual worth. You cannot judge a
collective, racially or otherwise. Whatever faculty you are using, it
is not judgment, thus it is not moral judgment, not in the moral realm
at all, but amoralist anti-judgment.
>For a long time, I did not know how Kant would respond, until I read
>this from an abridged translation about a kingdom of ends:
>
>"Laws determine certain ends as universal, and hence, *if abstraction
>is made from the individual differences of rational beings* (my
>emphasis) ... we get the idea of a complete totality of ends combined
>in a system ... we are able to conceive of a kingdom of ends ..."
>
>Let's discuss this.
>
>First of all, it is not clear what Kant means. Second, it has been
>said that genetic variety is im****tant for species survival. Third, we
>know that normal rules of duty cannot apply to people with certain
>disabilities. These are three problems that Kantians must face.
If you don't understand what is meant by a Kingdom of Ends, then why
must anybody face your challenging problems?
--
Yes, we speak English!
|
