Skip to main content

Explication of Kant's Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics


pp .44-50

44. P. 1 -- The will, which all rational beings have, is the part of the mind that has the capacity to establish its actions in harmony with laws. If the laws used to determine or decide upon which actions to take are objective and based upon reason alone, then the laws are called a “purpose.”  What Kant dubs “the means” is  the possible actions one could take to achieve an end or purpose (as opposed to doing something for its own sake, for the sake of duty). The will can base its actions from either the subjective purposes or objective purposes. On one hand, the subjective purposes for willing an act can be thought of as  the consequences or rewards of an act (and thus changing with each individual). On the other hand, the objective purposes hold true for all rational beings and are not variable, ie they hold good for all times, places, and rational beings and thus should be the ground or foundation upon which moral decisions are based. The subjective grounds, being tied up with inconsistent human desires, can't be the ground for an the actions of all rational beings.

45. P. 1 – If there existed something that had absolute worth (i.e. held true without qualification) and was an end in itself, then there must exist within it the grounds to establish a categorical imperative.

P. 2 -- Rational beings are ends in themselves (as opposed to means) and when rational beings act they must be treated as an end in themselves. Inclinations or subjective needs for acting are not absolute, they change, are malleable, etc.. Other beings act based on nature or instinct and do not have a choice in an act and therefore act for some reason other than ends in themselves. All of these conditional acts cannot be absolutely necessary.


P. 3 -- If  rational beings were to have an absolute basis as the reason for all actions, these acts must be ends in themselves. Rational beings do have this basis for necessary action because humans are ends in themselves. An action should be willed so that it is necessary for all other humans as well.  

46. P. 1 – Kant over the next few pages gives four examples. The first regards a man who thinks of killing himself. The act of killing oneself is not a end in itself because that person is using himself as a means. One cannot kill, maim, or corrupt himself because that would be treating oneself merely as a means and not an end.

P. 2 --  The second example deals with lying. If a person were to not keep a promise he is using the person to whom he promised something as a means for his own purposes. If a person attacks the rights of another person he is not using humanity as an end in itself. 

47. P. 1 – The third example: doing a good deed which many see as having merit to oneself. An action done from duty, in this case a good deed, can't be merely nonconflictual with humanity but has to maintain humanity as an end in itself. To be considered good, the duty must not just not conflict with humanity, but harmonize with it. 

P. 2 – The fourth example deals with acts of duty (good deeds) to others. Happiness is the purpose of men. Humanity would still exist even if a person acted not towards the happiness of others, but this detracts from humans as ends in themsleves because the ends of all humans must be the ends of all other humans.

P. 3 – The principle of humanity (that they are ends in themselves) is a limitation on freedom. One, acting by the dictates of reason, is no longer free to act on every whimsy, but must follow the categorical imperative because it is universal and applies to all rational beings in general. Treating man as an end it itself limits man's freedom of action. Treating humanity as an end in itself must be divorced from all experience, and be based on pure reason alone. This basis is rooted in universality (objectively) and subjectively as experience  not being the purpose of life. Every human being makes universal law.

48. P. 1 -- The choosing to act is subject to the law of universality but it also makes the law on the grounds of reason. The will must issue the law, but at the same time it is subject to the law.

P. 2 -- Universal necessary laws exclude obedience to the law as reason for an action. One must act out of respect for the law. There is a distinction between hypothetical and categorical imperatives. Categorical imperatives  necessarily command, and hypothetical imperatives are contingent on inclination This is achieved by the idea that the faculty to act freely is that which gives universal law.  A will giving universal law cannot be contingent on inclinations. Conditional wills would need another grounding law that would restrict these inclinations in order to making them universal.

49. P. 1 – There exists no room within universal law for inclinations . If there is a law for the governing all humans actions it commands that every action unconditionally be done out of respect for this law. Only the categorical imperative is a law for the will of all rational beings.

P. 2 -- Other principles  of morality in the past have failed because they failed to see that man's duty to law is to give universal law.

50. -- P. 1 Before, there was thought to  be no supreme grounds for actions and that actions arose from interests that were not unconditional.  (This is called the principle of autonomy of the will.)

P. 2 -- Universal law leads to all rational beings under the roof of common law because humans then strip themselves from individual inclinations.   This creates a union of humans as ends in themselves willing for the harmony of all humanity abiding by objective laws. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The concept of cultural appropriation – a critique of racism on its own foundations

Original here: https://gegen-kapital-und-nation.org/das-konzept-der-kulturellen-aneignung-eine-kritik-des-rassismus-auf-seinen-eigenen-grundlagen/ In recent years, a new form of racism,  cultural appropriation,  has been criticized in some anti-racist circles . They always discover this where members of a group adopt cultural productions (e.g. certain cultural customs, hairstyles, items of clothing,...) that, according to advocates of the concept of cultural appropriation, come from other groups, namely those who have less power over the acquiring group due to racial discrimination. When criticizing cultural appropriation, respect for these cultures is demanded. This respect should then contribute to combating racial discrimination. There was criticism that a non-indigenous artist in Canada integrated elements of indigenous art into her artwork.  1  Even when “white”  2  people wear dreadlocks or throw colored powder at each other (a practice inspired by th...

Democracy and True Democracy

“... I think that we agree on our criticism of the ruling democratic system. Except that this system doesn’t have anything to do with true popular government. Somehow, I think your criticism is misguided, if you want to say something against democracy.” I doubt that we really agree. But first things first: on the one hand, it could be irrelevant what you want to call that form of government which ensures that the citizens elect a government that they regularly entrust their affairs to, despite being constantly at odds with those who are elected and their policies for good reasons. Put “parliamentary system” or “ruling political system” or democracy in quotation marks or whatever. One thing, however, is clear: this political system has governed the citizens here for decades and, for all the complaining by the citizens about what the administrations are doing to them, it has at the same time established itself as a political system that is always appreciated by voters, making it un...

The Absurdity Known As The Right to Resist or Overthrow

Everyone is familiar with the refrain that there is a right to resist tyranny. If a government is tyrannical, then the people have the right to resist it or overthrow it. The doctrine of the "right to resistance/overthrow" contains a contradiction that is worth thinking about. The rights that people are never squeamish about praising as "natural" actually have to be conferred upon the people by the sanction of a public law granted by a state. However, if the state then turns around and says, "well, this is really tentative upon the whims of the people we rule over", then this completely undermines the basis of law. In other words, the most authoritative legislation (a constitution) would contain within itself a denial of its own supremacy and sovereignty if the right to resistance were actually enshrined and taken seriously, not just as a sop to popular stupidity. It's a basic tenet of liberalism -- and doubtlessly many other ideologies --   that...