|
a new way of looking at... philosophy >> rehabilitating kant - 1 |
- info -
|
The goal of feminist ethics is twofold. First, to challenge the ways in which we traditionally view ethics that were developed in a patriarchal society. Second, to develop new ways of thinking which work to remove the oppression that subsumes marginalized groups of people. It is a bold goal, and one necessary in a philosophical and moral world that is quickly going to shambles under the tides of postmodern thought and ethical relativism. In doing so, feminists have challenged previous conceptions of morality, butting heads with the likes of Plato, John Stuart Mill, and the focus of this paper, Immanuel Kant.
Unlike the previous two philosophers, I believe that there is still much to be learned from Kant's morality as it relates to an ethics of care. The goal of this paper is to show that the rehabilitated ethics of care put forth by Alisa L. Carse and Hilde Lindemann Nelson is a modern version of Kant's third categorical imperative. I will briefly discuss Kant's Principle of Humanity, show some important points overlooked by Kant from Marilyn Frye's concept of loving perception, and show how a rehabilitated ethics of care is the Principle of Humanity put into practice in a world of social construction. Kant's Third Categorical Imperative
First, Kant felt that the only thing in the world that is good without qualification was a good will.1 By this, he means that all other motives or virtues require qualification of a good will in order to be good. For example, being helpful may be regarded as good, but if it is done with intent to gain control over that person, then the act of helping someone ceases to be good in itself. This good will is directed by reason, and it is through reason that our will can be turned into a good will.2 This stems from the belief that since reason exists outside natural urges, that it is able to move from what we should do to what we ought to do. Finally, it is our duty to act from a good will because it is driven by reason, and hence implies what we ought to do over all other actions.3 This relationship serves as the basis for all morality as in order to determine what we should do, Kant advises against looking to empirical evidence for determination. Empirical evidence, while good for individual cases and understanding, can in no way serve to give a universal principle of morality since not all cases can be viewed to verify such a claim. Of extreme importance is the nature of reason. Kant states that reason "must look upon itself as the author of its own principles independently of alien influences."4 This particular point is controversial in itself, but I believe there is some merit to it. In determining what is the rational action to perform, one must look past influences of personal gain of wealth or happiness and immediate influences of physical and mental coercion. However, this is to simply make a rational decision, and as such does not seem to qualify for human action in practice, though it is nice as an ideal. |