Thanks for your reply. I have a few questions.
On Aug 16, 8:49 pm, Malrassic Park <Malen...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 08:11:58 -0700, Scott H <zinites_p...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
> >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.
Can you tell me where and how?
> 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,
Can you give an example?
> 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.
What does Kant mean when he writes of "abstraction being made from the
individual differences of rational beings"?
> >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?
If you kindly want to help me understand, then you must face these
challenges.
|
