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.
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
Post a Comment