| Title | : | The Metaphysics of Morals |
| Author | : | |
| Rating | : | |
| ISBN | : | 0521566738 |
| ISBN-10 | : | 9780521566735 |
| Language | : | English |
| Format Type | : | Paperback |
| Number of Pages | : | 280 |
| Publication | : | First published January 1, 1797 |
The Metaphysics of Morals Reviews
-
All of Kant's existence will dedicate to the Sovereign Good, and his whole philosophy follows: "There is nowhere anything in the world, nor even in general outside it, that it is possible to thinking and which could without restriction taken for good, except for goodwill. "
However, I should not approach the question of Good in a way that does not suit it. For example, defending the Good through aesthetic or religious arguments, or worse, employing a manipulative and deceitful argumentation, is inappropriate. You must do it honestly and research yourself before presenting it as a free possibility to others.
That said, on a metaphysical question of this kind, even the most honest research risks irresistibly leading the human being who makes it towards dogmatism or skepticism, places where morality disappears because skepticism does not believe in it and because dogmatism believes in illusion. Therefore, to avoid sinking into one of these moral impasses, it is necessary first to establish the openings and limits of human reason to develop a critical position where one can pursue morality safely. To do this, Kant will write his Critique of Pure Reason.
Subsequently, without fear of sinking into metaphysical ratiocination, he should finally be able to afford to tackle the question most important to him: morality.
However, in his Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, he seems content to tackle only a few preliminary questions by exposing the analog of feeling that is "respect" and by presenting various formulations of the categorical imperative before attempting a deduction of freedom in part 3. And it is undoubtedly the failure of his hypothesis of independence that kept him from writing his Metaphysics of Morals for some time. Morality is indeed impossible if freedom is not present.
But since the content of morality is presented to us through the categorical imperative, how can the freedom which should accompany it not be deduced from it? This morality is because all deduction belongs to the amoral world of logic and necessity, while freedom implies a leap in reflection or existence. It escapes, in its very essence, all needs and all causalities.
Kant is not yet ready to assume this leap in his writing when he produces his Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. But, if we have an eye for it, we can observe the emergence of this leap in the first part of his Critique of Practical Reason, which he wrote three years later.
However, I do not want to abuse the patience of people kind enough to read this little reflection to explain this essential piece of Kantian philosophy.
The set is a must-read for anyone interested in morality or philosophy, their own life, or of simple curiosity. And for others, it reads very well (for Kant) and constitutes a beautiful (and profitable) exercise in reflection. -
The question is not, as is desperately asked in every applied ethics seminar across the world: 'was Kant right?'. The question is, do we deserve to claim Kant is right in the eyes of God.
Kant claims that reason and faith are not only compatible, but interdependent, terming this reasoned demand ‘rational belief or faith’ . The following statement provides a summary of what this entails for his ethics and especially philosophy of history, ‘a human being who has common but (morally) healthy reason can mark out his path, in both a theoretical and a practical respect, in a way which is fully in accord with the whole end of his vocation’ , addressing here ‘friends of the human race’ who ‘use their freedom lawfully and hence in a way which is conducive to what is best for the world!’ . What Jacobi will later term a ‘salto mortale’ is thus for Kant conducive and indeed already integrated in the necessity of reason if we are not to ‘become unworthy of freedom’ .
So, to fulfil man’s moral vocation as intellectus ectypus, reason must have a ‘rational faith’ in the possibility of approximating itself to an intellectus archetypus, thereby orienting itself in history. This interpretation recognizes the merely regulative role played by the Idea of God, and provides humanity a moral vocation on both the individual and collective level to bridge the domains of nature and freedom. This simultaneously moral and scientific task assumes its highest conceptual expression in the pragmatic anthropology under the question ‘what is man?’, and thus invites humanity to partake in an endless self-critique that accords with the critical demands Kant has made emblematic of the Enlightenment. -
I cannot imagine thinking as deeply as Kant and other philosophers did. I am glad though to have their works and to be able to challenge myself in not only reading but also in analyzing my own ethics. I like Kant's categorical imperative which suggests we do things for the good within the good itself. My husband is much better at this than I am. I can see the flaw in human nature for doing things because of the outcome - - what Kant refers to as the hypothetical imperative. I do, however, disagree with Kant in that you do need to look at the outcome if a greater good is a stake.
-
I had to read this twice so I could at least start to absorb everything. I will likely have to read it a few more times to get what's going on here. It seems most readers through the years don't immediately have a clue what Kant was talking about. The content is something that one needs to meditate on and mentally digest so I'm afraid it would be a bit premature to write a proper review at this time. However, I would reccomend this to anyone with an interest in philosophy, sociology or psychology. It's most certainly food for thought.
-
Perhaps this is one of the most interesting subjects that I found myself spending a decent amount of time pondering on, for the domain of ethics, whether we like it or not, is of the utmost importance in our lives. Accordingly, and in an attempt of establishing the ultimate ideological construction, it becomes imperative to question my choices within given hypothetical (and quite possible) situations. Generally speaking, and being influenced from the very beginning by the vast sea of idealism (rather lost, as some would argue), I have been constantly inclined towards establishing a general formula that could be modeled and utilized. Somehow, this is what Kant has been trying to do, and his title "Father of German Idealism" did not come out of the blue; he rightfully earned it. Accordingly, and to grasp the main idea behind the book, one is bound to understand the context from which Kant constructs his philosophical framework. The core of his morality from where I see it is attempting to formulate a general law that depends in essence on human reason. Such maxims are metaphysical because they are independent of any condition of intuition; they float, and they are independent of our perception.
Once a specific situation that does not fit the law is provided, the idealist retires, and that is the main point I attempt to carefully ponder on while partially rejecting Kant's approach. In my understanding, the aim is to adopt an ideal construction that accounts by definition to the specific context that debunks the general law. In other words: a practical implementation of the ideal which does not compromise one of its metaphysical elements. Currently, it appears to be an almost impossible task, but I have persistence, and I'll keep on it until I find some adequate answers. If I find none, then that's fine, for I shall die eventually, and it won't make that much of a difference then. I suppose it's all a matter of a sport of some sort.
If I am honest, I would say that Kant's language and choice of words, although iconic, pose as a hindrance for the reader sometimes. It gets quite annoying at one stage. For that, the solution would be to download an existent glossary that clarifies some frequent terminology he utilizes.
All in all, it was a fun read. -
This is what our youth should be reading and not the nihilist Nietzsche. If more people aspired to live by the Categorical Imperative and to live in a Kingdom of Ends our society would be in a much better place and true progress could be achieved.
Please read this book and encourage others to do so. -
More interesting than his 'Critique of Pure Reason' for sure, as the Categorical Imperative idea is a worthwhile theory to consider or at the very least entertain.
-
Philosophers write like they are getting paid by the word.
-
Life is too short to read a book this poorly written, even if it contains new insight on important topics. I want to finish this, but it's just so badly present that Kant can't get out of his own way. I get that he originally gave these essays as lectures, but they are not only written in that stream-of-consciousness, conversational style, the amount of repetition and verbal diarrhea overwhelms the actual content with all of the "so you see" and "as I have shown" and repetitions of previous points, interjections and asides. The translator certainly bears a certain amount of the burden of guilt in literally having literally propagated Kant's literary sins, and god only knows what he was thinking about being 100% faithful in his reproduction of Kant's argumentative style, or perhaps how overly-enamored he was of Kant, his ideas, or both that he could not bear to lose a single word of the text, no matter how often it was over-used.
There are other translations of these essays, particularly those of Mary J. Gregor, that are considered definitive and I strongly recommend those be looked to instead. -
I tell you what, when I started my philosophy journey I really did think philosophy books were going to be closer to mystical self-help guides than they really are. The average polymath white dude Thinker TM of the last few centuries produced a work that’s a combination of apologetic letter to the sponsors for the gap in content, grammatical lexicon (what are words?), and legal statement. There’s a whole swathe of this book that’s all about wills, are they legal? It felt like a chapter of a lawyer’s textbook had been printed by mistake. But that’s OG text philosophy for ya! The ‘good life’ involves listening to God pronounce the judgements of your conscience court, not being happy about colonialism but finding the extermination of illegitimate kids tolerable, and wondering if haircuts are self-mutilation. Fun times.
Here be my notes.
Preface
There’s only one human reason, and so only one philosophy, one virtue, and one doctrine of virtue.
A doctrine’s ability to withstand ridicule signals its truth.
Introduction to the Metaphysics of Morals
Science has a priori principles.
Morals hold if they are SEEN to be based on a priori morality, not experience.
Only experience teaches us what brings joy; it cannot be reasoned beforehand.
Reason commands how to act without examples; its authority is based on purported advantages.
Moral anthropology deals with conditions that hinter or help in fulfilling the metaphysics of morals. It should not be confused with them.
Pleasure is a subjective feeling; it is only in relation to the subject.
Pleasure that precedes desire is inclination. Desire that precedes pleasure is intellectual pleasure.
Choice is the ability to fulfil a desire. A wish is an inability to fulfil a desire.
The will is the faculty of desire that lies within reason.
Choice isn’t pure but can be determined by the will.
Freedom is a purely rational concept; it cannot come from any possible experience.
Moral laws are imperatives; actions are either permitted or forbidden.
A fault is an unintentional transgression, while a crime is an intentional transgression.
Justice dictates right according to external laws.
Natural laws exist a priori and are obligatory without external lawgiving.
The categorical imperative says that you must act upon a maxim that can also hold as a universal law.
Legality is the conformity of an action with the law of duty.
Morality is the conformity of the maxim of an action with a law.
A maxim is a subjective principle of action and a principle of duty. Reason prescribes how you ought to act.
A law has a proposition that contains a command.
A priori binding laws come from a supreme lawgiver.
There is more merit if great natural obstacles and less moral obstacles block your actions.
Keeping promises is a duty of right not virtue, as this can be coerced.
Introduction to the Doctrine of Right
The doctrine of right are laws for which external lawgiving is possible.
A positive right exists if there has been actual lawgiving about it.
Right has to do with people’s relations to each other: choices not wishes.
Any action is right if it can coexist with everyone’s freedom in accordance with a universal law.
Everyone must pay debts: this is a coercion that coexists with the freedom of all.
The doctrine of right wants to be sure what belongs to all has been determined, while the doctrine of virtue has space for exceptions.
Thread of an uncertain ill (capital punishment) isn’t outweighed by a certain ill (drowning).
The duties of right are: be a means and an end for others; do not wrong anyone; let others keep their stuff.
Rights are: natural and a priori; positive/statutory if legislated; innate if belonging to everyone; acquired if it requires an external action.
Freedom is an innate equality which is beyond reproach.
The duties of right can have lawgiving while the duties of virtue cannot.
We know our own freedom through the moral imperative.
The moral imperative commands duty, from which you can then derive the capacity to put others under obligation.
Our relations to other humans involve rights and duties; to animals no rights or duties; to god, only duties, no rights.
The state of nature is not opposed to social but to civil conditions.
Private Right
If something is rightfully mine, I would be harmed if it used without my consent. This is called possession.
Rational possession is of an object external to me.
Empirical possession is of an object in another location.
Intelligible possession: I’m not holding it, but it’s still mine.
Do I possess another’s choice? Is his promise included in my belongings, independent of temporality or empirical possession?
Rights are a priori propositions sine they are laws of reason.
Permissive law is where others cannot have my stuff because I got there first.
Intuition re: empirical possession must be removed in order to extend the concept to: ‘it’s mine if I control it’.
Empirical holding v the concept of possession.
That is mine which I bring under my control, can use, and will to be mine.
Property Right
You don’t own things; otherwise you’d be their guardian spirit and have an obligation to objects.
The right to a thing is actually the right to the private use of a thing that’s originally owned in common, against others who also possess it in common.
The original possession in common precedes any acts of establishing rights.
Acquisition of an object is by unilateral will. However the capacity of the common will to bind recognition of possession is valid even if unilateral.
The condition in which the will of all is united for law is the civil condition.
Coercion is necessary to leave the state of nature for the civil condition, which makes acquisition provisional not conclusive. Provisional acquisition needs law to determine its limits. Leaving the state of nature is based on duty.
Kant is against colonialism!
If I am wronged, I can demand what is mine but not more.
Under a promise, you are enriched by an obligation on the freedom of another person.
Rights of Persons
Sexual union is the reciprocal use of sex organs. It can be natural or unnatural (!!).
Marriage is in accordance with law.
Sex work is making yourself a thing.
Husbands are the natural superiors in promoting the household’s interest … lol.
Children have an innate right to care. They are made without their consent, on their parents’ initiative. Thus the parents have an obligation to make the child content. You cannot destroy a child like a piece of property.
Division of Rights acquired by Contract
Division according to a priori principles is dogmatic
Money represents all goods. It is only indirect.
The nation’s wealth is the sum of the industry humans pay each other.
On Acquisition
A contract to make a gift should not be coerced.
If you loan something and its damaged, you are liable unless you specifically said not to do that beforehand.
You can never prove who first owned a thing, thus there’s no such thing as a ‘secure’ acquisition.
How do you know oaths are real? By presuming religion is real and relying on spiritual coercion.
Public Right
Individuals living in a civil condition is a state.
The difference between this and the state of nature is that laws for distributive justice can be put into effect.
The legislative authority of the state only belongs to the united will of the people.
A legislator cannot be a rule because the ruler is subject to the law.
There cannot be an authority to resist a supreme leader because that would make resistance stronger than the supreme leader so he isn’t supreme any more. Thus a state has no right to rebel. Reform can only be introduced by a sovereign. If a king is overthrown you can’t blame him for any acts he did as a supreme leader because he was the supreme law at the time.
By killing a king the state commits suicide, a truly unforgiveable act.
The government is authorized to constraint the wealthy to help maintain those who aren’t.
He suggests taxing childless people to support orphans! Thank you next.
Churches cannot hinder progress as this is anti-humanity.
You cannot bequeath merit to your descendants (anti-hereditary nobility yay).
Laws of punishment should not teach lessons or cause reparations: just punish the crime. Nor should punishment involve experiments. Justice isn’t justice if it can be bought.
Apparently an honourable man would prefer to be hung for murder than do hard labour – it would be more punishing to live and do hard labour.
Illegitimate children are like contraband that’s smuggled into the country! You can ignore their ‘annihilation’!!!
The overthrow of a civil constitution by revolution is a dissolution of democracy, because the united people are the sovereign.
The Right of Nations
The rights of states are all about war.
All states are in a condition of war with others at all times.
Apparently wars can’t be punitive, or carried out for extermination or subjugation. Er, what?
Cannot use in your state’s defense: spies, snipers, assassins, fake news, or plunder.
States have no right to seek compensation or make colonies after a war, because that suggests the war was unjust.
You can take any measures against an unjust enemy … but what is an unjust enemy?
Perpetual peace is unachievable. However, even so, we should act like it is and work towards it.
Cosmopolitan Right
Marriage is a way of preventing sex from being dehumanizing.
Children incur obligations from their parents.
Power should belong to laws and not humans; this is what metaphysics is.
Doctrine of Virtue
Ethics are duties that don’t come under external laws.
Duty is a constraint, either external or self imposed.
Virtue is the capacity and resolve to withstand an unjust opponent.
Ends that are also duties: one’s own perfection and the happiness of others.
Adversity, pain, and want are temptations to violate duty.
The greatest perfection is to do your duty from duty.
Benevolence is unlimited; it is harder to do good.
Self love can’t be separated from our need for love, hence we make ourselves an end for others.
There are no limits to what we should do for others; we definitely shouldn’t tempt them to do things that will later pain them.
Strength of virtue is measured by the obstacles overcome.
Obstacles include our natural inclinations, so constraint is self imposed.
The unconditional end of virtue is to be its own end and its own reward (versus holiness, because a holy person is never tempted).
We can enhance the moral incentive by contemplation.
Moral feeling is an awareness that our actions are constrained by duty; it isn’t created but cultivated.
Conscience is an unavoidable fact, but it is possible to ignore its verdict. We can work to enlighten ourselves as to what is our duty.
Through doing good to others you may learn to love your neighbour ‘as yourself’.
Respect for your own being forms the basis of your duty to yourself.
Duties to Oneself
Suicide goes against the duty of self preservation and violation of one’s duty to others.
Self mutilation is also undutiful. (Depends if you’re ill though, and he’s unsure about haircuts. Also vaccines.)
‘Unnatural’ sex is worse though because suicide requires courage and some self-respect, but bad sex deprives you of ALL RESPECT.
Is having sex with an infertile woman morally wrong, Kant wonders.
Sexual pleasure is not moral pleasure.
Gluttony and drunkenness basically make you an animal (weirdly I am on board with this hot take).
Perfect Duties to Oneself
Regarding lies: the doctrine of right says they’re only harmful if they hurt others. Ethics says no authorization is derived from harmlessness.
An external lie is contemptible to others, an internal lie is contemptible to oneself.
Conscience is an internal court. You can refuse to heed it but not to hear its verdict. God is the judge.
God doesn’t provide an empirical experience and we should act as if he exists.
Imperfect Duties to Oneself
Duty to cultivate natural powers. The powers of the spirit are exercised through reason not experience eg maths. The powers of the soul are memory and imagination. The powers of the body is looking after the body’s matter.
Duties of Virtue to Others
Love is a benevolence that results in beneficience.
Respect is limiting our self esteem by the dignity of others.
Sympathy is pleasure at another’s joy.
Envy is greeting another’s wellbeing with distress.
We have a duty to respect every human being and that is why torture is bad.
Failure to do so is vice.
The Methods of Ethics
A good example isn’t a model; it shows us what we ought to be.
A Stoic puts up with misfortune and learns how to do without superfluous pleasure.
An Epicurean has a cheerful heart.
Doing duty is meritorious only if done cheerfully.
Ethics cannot extend beyond the limits of humans’ duties to each other; God is too complicated to count. -
Morality and law are always a questionable mix. But Kant is not deterred. Emboldened by his firm categorical imperative, he examines basic legal principles through this hefty lens. The first half of the The Metaphysics of Morals seems to be the 18th Century’s version of Plato’s Laws. An analysis of what is law, what types of laws are there and what law should strive to be. Except, for Kant, it lacks the joyful meanderings of Plato.
After the first half (titled the Doctrine of Right), Kant moves into the Doctrine of Virtue. Even he concedes in his Preface that:[t]oward the end of the book I have worked less thoroughly over certain sections than might be expected in comparison with the earlier ones, partly because it seems to me that they can be inferred from the earlier ones and partly, too, because the later sections (dealing with the public right) are currently subject to so much discussion, and still so important, that they can justify postponing a decisive judgment for some time. Pg. 6
Not a real strong foundation for what attempts to be a foundational work. Nevertheless, people who get into Kant surely appreciate the details he gets into regarding the difference between “wide” and “indeterminate” duties and his examination of specific duties. However, as I suspect he himself realized, it becomes somewhat absurd to spend too much time hashing out the details. If you can deduce the categorical imperative for an action, then it has the force of law. That’s because, at the core of Kant’s belief, God is at the core. As he concludes his Doctrine of Virtue, he finally reveals this key component:That is to say, we cannot very well make obligation (moral constraint) intuitive for ourselves without thereby thinking of another’s will, namely God’s (of which reason in giving universal laws is the only spokesman). Pg. 229
Couching belief in logic can only go so far.
-
This book certainly has some interesting ideas and from time to time it does appeal to my own social/political ideas but all in all I feel the categorical imperative, and with it the entire theory, is not practical.
For an ethical theory to be practical I feel it is essential that it is based on the real man and not the ideal man. The categorical imperative does this in part by accepting that people have certain desires they tend to follow but Kant seems to step over this issue rather easily without giving it a proper place in his theory. We are simply expected not to follow these desires and to let our reason lead us instead.
Of course, in a way Kant does give this inclination a place in the Metaphysics of Morals by introducing obligation and punishment - with which he accepts the fact that people will not always obey the law voluntarily. But this is not part of the moral law. The moral law, The categorical imperative, asks us to do things that will often feel incompatible with our moral sense (giving a murderer directions to your children by his request). -
All moral relations of rational beings, which involve a principle of the harmony of the will of one with that of another, can be reduced to love and respect; and, insofar as this principle is practical, in the case of love the basis for determining one's will can be reduced to another's end, and in the case of respect, to another's right.
-
Kant is a genius. I am not sure I agree with his ideas but that does not change the fact they are well-built and creative.
-
The Doctrine of Right is the main reason why I read the book. It is really good. For those of you who think Kant is unreadable, you should read it. It is very clearly put. The most interesting points Kant raises, apart from his long-winded albeit interesting anti-Lockean theory of property, are imho the distinction between right and morals (1), his unrestrained attack on the right of rebellion (2), and his criticism of Beccaria's points against death penalty (3). Of course there is more to it than just these, but these really are what I considered to be the key takeaways of the book. If you want a systematic perspective of how the book is wrought, you might as well just read it, it isn't that long.
(1) Rights and laws are enforceable and you should abide by them whatever the reason you give yourself for doing so. It doesn't matter. All that matters is that you abide by it. Duties and morals, on the contrary, have to do with how you think about what you do: it is an inner obligation or constraint, not an outer one. So it has to do with what you can force people to do: you can't force me to have a definite intention (that is only up to me, which is why you have to distinguish between morals and politics) but you can force me to adopt a definite behavior. The behavior that you can legitimately force me to adopt is one that doesn't violate anyone else's own freedom. Therefore, you have very libertarian-leaning pages where Kant defends the right to prostitution although that doesn't mean that these legitimate activities are morally defensible. Actually when it comes to morals, Kant is pretty much in line with very conservative Victorian-like ethics (as in "let's castrate the homos").
(2) The right of rebellion Kant regards as self-contradictory. If you think the king violated the Constitution, how can you know that you are right in believing so? Who will settle the debate between the people and the king (let alone the fact that it is rather seldom to have a people rebelling all at once against the king)? Similarly, the "people" is only constituted as such by the king and the emergence of the State, which is why having the people proceeding to rebel against it seems logically impossible in the eyes of Kant, as what the people sets itself to abolish is the primary reason if its existence. At this point, I think it is actually quite funny to see how the notion of "contract" evolved from Locke to Kant (you could argue that Kant's politics are just the total opposite of Locke's) from a seemingly revolutionary idea that tries and limit the scope of the State's power to a conservative notion in Kant's political philosophy that essentially makes any revolution impossible/self-contradictory. To be honest, Kant's understanding of the notion is quite different from Locke's, as the "contract" only exists as far as Kant goes in the form of a regulatory idea, something like a benchmark the ruler uses to make decisions (some sort of gold-standard of political decision-making if you will). This hypothetical original "contract" is also the notion Kant resorts to when discussing Locke's theory of property (though he doesn't directly mention Locke as he does for Beccaria for instance): unlike Locke who justifies property through the act of adding value to what you own through work, Kant essentially states that work is but a trace you leave signalling that you own the land you work on, i.e. it assumes that you already own it, through a contract. In the beginning, you have to assume that there was some sort of original contract that gave the Earth to all mankind in order to legitimate all subsequent interindividual contracts. This, by the way, is typical Kantian reasoning in a nutshell: in order to make some stuff legit, you have to make up/posit some other stuff that doesn't exist to ground the stuff that exists in reality. In this line of thinking, the State itself doesn't own anything, though it be the sole instance that has the power to decide what goes to whom.
(3) This notion of contract is also key to Kant's rebuttal of Beccaria. Beccaria essentially argued that the reason why you can't have death penalty is no one would want to sign a contract in which he agrees to be killed. But 'tis but nonsense, Kant says: it most certainly is not the same person that agrees to the contract and that kills! Either that person was a killer right from the start and then he or she is deprived of any legislative power and the contract they signed is worth nothing, or that person was not a killer right from the start and then, well, it is not the same person anymore and therefore what they previously agreed to or didn't agree to is irrelevant. Besides, when signing the hypothetical contract, you do not agree to being sentenced to death you personally: you agree to have any random person who commits a murder sentenced to death penalty.
By and large, The Doctrine of Right is insightful and clever. It made me want to read the Doctrine of Virtue but the Introduction was so repetitive and boring that I dropped it. I more or less intend to read Byrd's Commentary and Arendt's Lectures on Kant's Political Philosophy now. -
Virtue as an Intellectus Archetypus
Not to be confused with his much earlier 1785 work Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals in which he attempts to build a metaphysical foundation for absolute morality, Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals focuses on the application of virtue in the real world. In keeping with the grounded, practical themes of his later works, the metaphysician of Prussia’s Die Metaphysik der Sitten focuses on law, government regulation and virtue. Law is the inevitable end of Reason, and as such, is rooted in a priori principles native to the soul but not external experience, in other words, metaphysical. The imperative of virtue relies on internal compulsion, while the imperative of legality relies on an external compulsion. In his lifelong rage against the Empiricism of David Hume, Kant here builds a positive framework devoid of polemics.
The ethical and legal principle to behave in a civil, cosmopolitan manner of mutual respect is an imperative command of Reason, and we are merely acknowledging a theory of law that is intuitive to all rational agents. Kant does not posit that his ideas are new, just clearer than his predecessors. These are the dull, functional manifestations of an Intellectus Arrchytypus native to the whole of humanity. This is the telos of Reason and not merely the Techne- the internal ordering of the soul, the a priori postulates of Reason, tell one not merely how to do something, but what ought to be done. The will is the source of both Morality and Evil. In Kant's Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, he writes:There is nothing in the world, or even outside of it, that can be considered good without restriction, but only a good will. Understanding, wit, power of judgment, and whatever else the talents of the spirit may be called, or courage, determination, perseverance in resolution as qualities of temperament are undoubtedly good and desirable in some intentions; but they can also become extremely evil and harmful if the will…is not good…. For without principles of good will they can become most evil… The good will is good not by what it brings about or accomplishes, not by its suitability for the attainment of some predetermined end, but solely by the will
Kant’s “Doctrine of Rights” explained here would inspire Hegel’s 1820 Philosophy of Rights, where he would develop a more robust legal theory and a more restrictive social contract. Kant’s legal theory is deeply rooted in his Deontological moral theory which emphasizes duty, what one ought to do, regardless of desire or any other factor. Hegel’s theory of governance likewise emphasizes duty, but understands societal advancement more teleologically, creating an entire Eschatology not quite seen in Kant. To Kant, a peaceful world is the telos of Reason, while Hegel sees even beyond world peace. Both see virtue as an elemental choice of the intellectual archetypes of the will.
The Metaphysician of Konigsburg
1755 General Natural History and Theory of Heaven:
https://bit.ly/3FbUrcK
1764 Observations on the feeling of the beautiful:
https://bit.ly/3uf7XWJ
1766 Dreams of a Ghost-Seer:
https://bit.ly/3XIPFut
1783 Prolegomena to any future metaphysics:
https://bit.ly/3uewAD0
1785 Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals:
https://bit.ly/3XGObRt
1786 Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science:
https://bit.ly/3GUz4Ob
1787 Critique of Pure Reason:
https://bit.ly/3gMJ0i9
1788 Critique of Practical Reason:
https://bit.ly/3UdFBGZ
1790 Critique of Judgment:
https://bit.ly/3FdzkGK
1793 Religion within the Limits of Mere Reason:
https://bit.ly/3FdEL8E
1795 Toward Eternal Peace:
https://bit.ly/3ioyLRH
1797 Metaphysics of Morals:
https://bit.ly/3gNkddY
1798 The Dispute of the Faculties:
https://bit.ly/3AVMVQO -
Não acho que caiba escrever sobre as obras kantianas no Goodreads, pelo menos não em meu perfil. Portanto, deixarei a nota máxima para expressar o quão imperativo é a leitura do texto para quem se interessa em ética, moral e razão.
-
عالم الأخلاقيات الخاص بكانت مألوف ليا بنسبة كبيرة جداز الفيلسوف العظيم متأثر بسعيه وراء احترام النفس البشرية في نطاق التعامل الانساني. و أسس الاخلاقيات التي اصردها بعا انعكاس لتاثير البيئة المسيحية المتدينة في القرن الثامن عشر. كتاب رائع و أسلوب شيق و رأي محترم للنفس البشرية في كل صورها.
-
excellent case for duty-based ethics
-
péssimo livro, nem fala do carnaval nem nada
-
Fluctuating between 3-4 stars
-
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH Ethics Summer 2022
