"Malrassic Park" <Malenoid@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:egr9c3dkenpagc7d7q4jtv9j4lm3redfpf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.
Great post. Individuals alone have judgments - and consciousness. "I"
never stands for "my group" and "my group" doesn't think or have
consciousness in the way that the word is typically used.
For group-think (or cor****ation-think) to be elevated to the level of
"individual consciousness" is a huge error in ethical thinking, especially
if one wants to use maxims or Kant.
>
>>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!
|
