|
a new way of looking at... philosophy >> rehabilitating kant - 2 |
- info -
|
There is also a dual relationship that we stand within when interacting with the world that dips heavily in Kant's metaphysics. Human beings exist within two worlds: the intelligible and the sensible. Kant's transcendental idealism puts human beings existing at things in themselves in the intelligible world while interacting in the sensible world of appearances. As such, we see all things from two perspectives. We primarily process information from the sensible world as operating within the laws of nature that are empirically verifiable, and secondarily under laws of reason, which are non-empirical.5 The importance of this point is that we operate in two worlds, and as such have to deal with the demands of both worlds.
These relationships create categorical imperatives that represent "an action as objectively necessary in itself apart from its relation to a further end".6 This is not to say that one should not consider the possible consequences in determining what course of action to take, but that the decision cannot be based on subjective means of value or determination when devising a universal imperative for action. Categorical imperatives are therefore actions that we should follow out of a sense of duty since they are objective (and hence reasonable) and follow from a good will. Kant devises several categorical imperatives for which to follow, but the scope of this paper focuses on two. The first has been called the Principle of Humanity, or to "act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time an end."7 The second is the Principle of the Kingdom of Ends, or to "so act as if you were through your maxims a law-making member of a kingdom of ends."8 The Principle of Humanity deals with the way in which we treat other human beings. Out of respect for their rational autonomy, we treat humanity such that we never simply see them as a means to an end. Given the interdependent nature of humanity, it would be foolhardy to say that we never would contact another person or seek their assistance in completing some task of our own. However, Kant is asking for a shift in attitude towards those persons, in such a manner as to treat them as people with their own ends they wish to accomplish. They are people, not robots to be used. Moreover, we should not simply leave off at not treating people as means only, but to "further the ends of others."9 This Principle relates to the Principle of the Kingdom of Ends in such a way that if everyone treated everyone else in the manner stated by the Principle of Humanity, we would see the birth of a Kingdom of Ends, where we would be able to pass laws such that it would make sense for everyone to follow them.10 There is a great deal of concerns with this view from a feminist standpoint. First is the focus on rationality. Many feminists feel that to reinforce rationality as the distinguishing trait of human beings, we are simply reinforcing cultural stereotypes about women being irrational and hence excluded from moral discourse. I would argue that we all do have a rational component that we utilize to live, and that the concern with feminists is not with the emphasis of rationality, but on the ways in which women are constructed as being irrational. I do agree, however, that while rationality may be the significant trait between humans and the rest of the animal species, it is not and should not be the sole consideration when dealing with issues of morality. However, to discount the presence of a rational facet to our person would be to discount something that is viable to understanding human nature, and according to Kant, understanding morality.11 |