councilor.org
| Source | Ian Murray |
| Date | 99/07/09/02:04 |
| Which is why we should no longer read Kant! Ian > Kant wrote: "Another finds himself forced by necessity to borrow money. He > knows that he will not be able to repay it, but sees also that > nothing will > be lent to him unless he promises stoutly to repay it in a definite time. > He desires to make this promise, but he has still so much > conscience to ask > himself: Is it not unlawful and inconsistent with duty to get out of a > difficulty in this way? Suppose, however, that he resolves to do so, then > the maxim of his action would be expressed thus: When I think myself in > want of money, I will borrow money and promise to repay it, > although I know > that I never can do so. Now this principle of self-love or of one's own > advantage may perhaps be consistent with my whole future welfare; but the > question now is, Is it right? I change then the suggestion of self-love > into a universal law, and state the question thus: How would it be if my > maxim were a universal law? Then I see at once that it could never hold as > a universal law of nature, but would necessarily contradict itself. For > supposing it to be a universal law that everyone when he thinks himself in > a difficulty should be able to promise whatever he pleases, with the > purpose of not keeping his promise, the promise itself would become > impossible, as well as the end that one might have in view in it, since no > one would consider that anything was promised to him, but would ridicule > all such statements as vain pretenses." > > It is interesting to take note of not only the way in which Kant > formulated > his categorical imperative (empty and formal, in contrast to earlier moral > teachings that pointed to substantial goals) but also the kind of examples > that Kant used to illustrate and clarify how he thought of it. Both the > formula and the examples he offered suggest that Kant's > innovation in moral > philosophy consisted in proposing the kind of morality that would be > consistent with the workings of the market. The above example should > satisfy the creditors. > > Kant insisted that his moral principles are based upon the idea > of a *will* > as *good in itself*. Happiness, health, and other substantial goals are > secondary to it. In fact, he went further and said, "Nay, it [the > cultivation of the reason] may even reduce it [the attainment of > happiness] > to nothing." Here one can read Kant's idea of will as an > excellent metaphor > for the ideal free market, uncontaminated by feelings, desires, and > objectives imcompatible with its primary and only unconditional purpose. > Kant also wrote: "That an action done from duty derives its moral worth, > *not from the purpose* which is to be attained by it, but from > the maxim by > which it is determined, and therefore does not depend on the > realization of > the object of the action, but merely on the *principle of volition* by > which the action has taken place, without regard to any object of desire." > Kant's principle of the will is as rigorous and implacable as the drive to > accumulate--accumulation for the sake of accumulation, whic is the mirror > image of morality for the sake of morality. > > Yoshie |
Copyright (c) 1998, Joongpil Cho