Tuesday, October 7, 2008

Crazy Kant and Nothingness in Non-Contradiction

I am going to be honest here. I know Kant's basic moral "Categorical Imperative" and I hate it. My summary would be this: Act only in accordance with a maxim that you believe should become a universal law. Thus, if I believe the maxim "Thief is wrong." Then I should never steal, because that indicates that I believe that this should be a universal law. This is where I have problems. I am not a Kant scholar, and I am sure that he addresses this, but there is nothing, given Kant's obsession with not contradicting himself, that would pass as morally acceptable then. Another example - suppose a jobless single Mother has no choice but to steal to feed her children? Should she, in the pursuit of some abstract ideal (non-contradiction) simply let her children starve? To a Kantian, who believes thief is either always wrong or always right, the answer is yes. That is the problem with the notion that contradiction is never appropriate. Circumstances change - Kant (to the best of my knowledge, hopefully he proves me wrong) takes no account of this - everything is black and white. Thus, any and all approaches to ethics that I will come up with will not be based SOLELY on the notion of non-contradiction. I would argue that a better version of this theory than Kant's would be to not hold any values in regard what so ever, since it is only human to have to break them. As a matter of fact, I would argue (again, keeping in mind the follies of contradiction) that the only thing one can put a value on is one's own life (and possible the life of family members or very close friends) since that is the only thing people will actively pursue to protect. When the life is threatened universal laws and categorical imperatives disappear. To clarify, I am not arguing for a Nihilistic outlook, if anything the opposite - it is the notion that some how by protecting our lives and the lives of those close to us is to be frowned upon when weighed against acting the same way in different situations (even if this is not the RATIONAL thing to do) is the ideal that is truly foolish and lacking meaning.

1 comment:

Andy Bryant said...

My experience has always been that extreme ideas are usually not the truest answer. I guess what I am saying is if Kant believes that things can only be placed in "right and wrong" categories, then that leaves no room for the truth in the middle. I like how you compared his beliefs to real life situations. I don't think I will like Kant if it is like you say.