On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 21:54:06 -0700, Scott H <zinites_page@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>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?
An example of morally judging an individual? These are prolific. How
about, "OJ Simpson is a vicious murderer." Now, would you like me to
give you an example of a desk? Or a chair?
>> 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.
No, you must read these works, particularly Hannah Arendt's "Lecture's
on Kant's Political Philosophy," all I must do is point toward the
sources. Hannah Arendt was a Jewish philosopher who used Kant's works
to help us understand, and defeat, the types of irrational attitudes
that helped make Nazism a reality, by pointing to Kant's emphasis on
the responsibility of judgment making. The only way to make your
original point valid is to tear Kantian morality out of the context of
architectonic, that is, to ignore the entire discussion of faculties,
that is, to ignore what Kant had to say in its entirety.
For example, if you want to judge people with disabilities, you must
first realize that Kantian morality is not based on what people CANNOT
do, one of the first priorities is to consider them from the vantage
of "ought implies can." And I'm certain that even the most disabled of
people CAN do something, because notice that, with the disabled,
simply to go on living every day requires much more effort and
volition than any of us would care to realize. For many of them, it
requires an effort simple to breathe.
Now that is just one of your challenges. What was your first
challenge? "It is not clear what Kant means" by a Kingdom of Ends?
Well, Kant's writing is challenging, so research it. That's what
Google is for. And it seems that most people these days go straight to
Wikipedia anyway, although it is dangerous to limit one's research to
a single source. And Wikipedia, you should realize, has been banned
from some schools as a source of citation. So if I were you I would
just Google "Kant kingdom of ends" first and find to my vast amazement
that there are 773,000 resources out there on the subject, and so it
is no longer necessary to go begging on usenet for the information.
Now, for your second challenge: "it has been said that genetic variety
is im****tant for species survival." But many things have been said,
which ones are true? And what are your own grounds for this? Why
should I try to knock down your challenge when you have given no basis
for creating it? The question seems to be based on a misunderstanding
of "kingdom of ends," but only you can know that for sure since it was
your challenge.
--
Yes, we speak English!
|
