Insert into 3: Kants Theory of Morality

1 SLIDES 50-53

Issues in moral theory

2

1) phenomenology of moral duty Separating duty from desire (for happiness) 2) How do we know what is our duty? Formulations of the Categorical Imperative 3) relation of duty and happiness: the Highest Good 4) realizability of the Highest Good: antinomy of

practical reason

Leads to discussion of the postulates of morality

5) what is the source of the power of moral

consciousness?

Is there a 3rd possibility?

50

We are all faced throughout our lives with agonizing

decisions, moral choices. Some are on a grand scale. Most of these choices are on a lesser scale. But we define ourselves by the choices we have made. We are in fact the sum total of our choices. Events unfold so unpredictably, so unfairly. Human happiness does not seem to have been included in the design of creation. It is only we with our capacity to love that give meaning to the indifferent universe. And yet most human beings seem to have the ability to keep trying, and even to find joy from simple things, like their family, their work, and from the hope that future generations might understand more. Louis Levi in Woody Allens Crimes and Misdemeanors

The universe is a pretty cold place

51

1) The universe follows laws of science that are

indifferent to human welfare: the universe is a pretty cold place. Its we who invest it with our feelings. 2) It is up to us to make the best of our lives by giving and seeking love; by trying to make the world a better place, in the hope that future generations will benefit from our choices.

52

Q1: How does he know that the universe is a cold

place, indifferent to human welfare and justice? A: the laws of science Q: If the laws of science apply to the universe, how is it possible to make choices in our lives? A: We must believe we are free to make important choices Q2: But to have such a belief dont we have to suppose that deterministic science does not give us the ultimate answer regarding the nature of reality?

Kant: appearance and reality

53

Q3: If we can postulate freedom, why not postulate a

friendlier universe?

(Kants postulates: Freedom, God and Immortality)

Q4: If we project our feelings on to the universe, perhaps

we are projecting the values of a cold, indifferent social order, based on Me-firstism, onto the universe?

(Kant: we create a cold world by choosing to act on the principle of individual self-interest)

Q5: Compare the beauty of a forest with the bleakness of

a strip mall: which is cold, indifferent?

Kant: Beauty is the symbol of morality.

4 Hegels Critique of Kants Theory of Knowledge

7

Kants reversal of Plato

8

Plato: sensible experience gives us opinions, while

reason leads us beyond the illusions of sensibility to ultimate truths Kant: scientific knowledge gives us appearances, not reality. It is (such) knowledge that traps us in the cave of illusion. Morally based belief leads us to possible truth

Dissatisfaction with Kant

9

Post-Kantians are dissatisfied with this argument that

philosophical truth should be founded on mere belief. Isnt there a kind of higher order knowledge in Kants picture? 1) We know that there is a Reality, a Thing-in-itself. Kant himself says this. 2) Kant gives us a kind of moral certainty that appeals to the experience of duty. Isnt this a kind of knowing? 3) Doesnt the 1st person perspective of practical reason rely on some kind of knowing? At least we know what we are trying to do, the principles we are acting on, etc.

Fichtes I and not-I

10

Fichte attempted to extend Kants transcendental

method of argumenation

What are the underlying grounds of our experience?

-> what must the thing in itself be like for our

experience to have the characteristics it has?

E.g., reality must be capable of resisting our efforts to impose our ideas and whims. There is a not-I which is the other side of the coin of I.

Hence there is no unknowable thing in itself:

Schelling: Knowledge and Intuition

11

Fichte reduces everything to being forms of

knowledge But reality is an infinity that transcends the limited nature of our subjective forms of knowing These forms divide reality into separate objects, but reality is a unity Through intuition we have direct knowledge of this fundamental unity of reality

Hegel: night in which all cows are black

12

But what do we really know with such intuition of

unity? It is a night in which all cows are black. To have real knowledge we need to make distinctions in the unity. Reality is like an organism, with living parts related to one another. The standard empirical sciences, based on analytical understanding, do indeed divide reality in ways that distort this organic unity. Therefore we need another form of scientific knowledge: dialectical reason

We can know the thing in itself

13

Hegel: The Thing-in-itself (and under thing is

embraced even Mind and God) expresses the object when we leave out of sight all that consciousness makes of it, all its emotional aspects, and all specific thoughts of it. It is easy to see what is leftutter abstraction, total emptiness, only described still as an other-worldthe negative of every image, feeling, and definite thought. Hence one can only read with surprise the perpetual remark that we do not know the Thing-in-itself. On the contrary there is nothing we can know so easily.

Paying attention to concepts

14

Hegel here examines the thing-in-itself as a

concept having a certain meaning. Kant draws our attention to the importance of concepts in the knowing process But he limits his position to the question: are they subjective or objective, a priori or empirically acquired? It is a major step forward beyond empiricism to draw attention to the role of concepts in our knowing

Empiricism: we can know reality directly, without any conceptual or theoretical framework

Kants vicious circle

15

Hegel to Kant: but how do we know the meaning of our

concepts themselves? Kant: all knowing is mediated by concepts, and so we do not know thing-in-itself, but only the thing-as-knownthrough-concepts Hegel:

This is a major step beyond ordinary empiricism. But can we apply this perspective to knowledge of the concepts themselves? We only know concepts through concepts, only as mediated by (other) concepts; and so we cannot know the concepts as they are in themselves but only as they appear to us

Kants position leads to a vicious circle:

How does Kant know the a priori concepts?

16

Kant takes the concepts of metaphysics from

Aristotle, and later logicians He argues that they are a priori subjective forms of experiencing, not features of the objective world which we know through generalization But either our knowledge of concepts is mediated by other concepts -> circularity Or we know our concepts through generalization from experience

Kant falls back to empiricism

17

But then we are back to Humes empiricism We know our concepts by generalizing through limited

experience How do we know that all people (humans) experience the world through these concepts? (universality) How do we know that such concepts are necessary forms of experience? (necessity) Kant claims to ground the universality and necessity of science on the universality and necessity of our a priori categories But all he can establish is that some people (perhaps just himself) sometimes experience reality in time and space, as objects with properties, etc.

18

We ought--reasons Kant, according to Hegel--to

become acquainted with the instrument, before we undertake the work for which it is to be employed; for if the instrument be insufficient, all our trouble will be spent in vain. The plausibility of this suggestion has won for it general assent and admiration; the result of which has been to withdraw cognition from an interest in its objects and absorption in the study of them, and to direct it back upon itself; and so turn it to a question of form.

19

Unless we wish to be deceived by words, it is easy to

see what this amounts to. In the case of other instruments, we can try and criticise them in other ways than by setting about the special work for which they are destined. But the examination of knowledge can only be carried out by an act of knowledge. To examine this so-called instrument is the same thing as to know it. But to seek to know before we know is as absurd as the wise resolution of Scholasticus, not to venture into the water until he had learned to swim.

Where to begin?
20

We cannot know before we know Kant admits that we at least know our concepts, if not

reality in itself So he too supposes knowledge But his theory that all knowledge rests on a priori concepts leads to a vicious circle Therefore we must enter the stream of knowledge by first getting our feet wet We should begin with knowing something thats easy to know Whatever it is in itself (e.g., appearance or reality) we at least know this sensible object here and now