5 pg philosophy paper On kant and mill

Immanuel Kant

Age of Enlightenment

Human Individual is the center of the universe and capable of full freedom and intellect.

Pure principles of reason are necessary for any action and justification.

Kant is a rationalist like Descartes, but he believes that any rational or logical explanation of reality is insufficient without human freedom. He notices a flaw in Descartes’s argument. Descartes argues that every idea carries with it an internal justification for its mental and external reality. For example, you have an idea of God, you have a lot reasons to believe that God exists and that your idea of God is equal and adequate to the external reality. I can give a lot of mental reasons for God: most perfect, most real, eternal, not a contradiction so always the same… For Descartes, since you cannot provide reasons to doubt a supreme cause (God), you must grant that it exists separate from you and guarantees the world is real. For other ideas, for example, a square-circle within the idea, there are ideas to deny its existence. Just by thinking it, you know that logically it’s NOT POSSIBLE to exist. This logical method can be applied to other ideas like the future, past etc. A prediction for the future can have a couple of good reasons to believe it will be the case but I can always use doubt to say that another force could deny it. For God, there are no mental reasons or other causes I can think which would deny it.

Kant does not agree with Descartes’s logic. For Kant, existence is not a (logical) property or discovery; existence is real on its own terms. Counter argument: I can provide a lot of good reasons and logical explanations to many scenarios (Robbery Example) but those logical connection of causes don’t prove that reality has to be one case or the other. For Kant, the reality of a specific experience must embody those logical laws or justifications. This is why he attacks any rational or logical explanation of Morals. I can give you many good reasonable rules for moral/ethics. But, if you don’t embody them, you are not moral or being good. You have to WILL and WANT the good to be good. Good is not merely following the rules or laws but embodying and enacting those laws through your own freedom and intellectual actions.

Kant believes INTENTION or YOUR WISHES for an action make it good or evil. The effects of actions and rule-following are not enough to make you moral; every second and occasion you have to make a choice for the good otherwise it is not good.

Laws of Nature vs. Laws of Freedom:

Laws of Nature are very regular and rational and provide a logical justification for why things happen. But for Kant, those rules or laws are only intelligent if there is a free mind to agree to their worth. Physical laws don’t predict the reality unless a mind understands that it’s the best possible explanation at that time. For Kant, logic can be too abstract and needs specific context. But Kant does not give up one reason. Reason now must be based on human freedom.

Laws of Freedom: any necessary or rational or moral action must be due to a human freewill taking an action or event and willing it to a universal to find out that action is necessary. There is no before the fact truth that necessarily predicts or will predict effects. Kant is against utilitarianism. No amount of good effects can make a good action. Laws of freedom require that a human free mind take proposed actions and will them to a universal to discover their necessarily moral quality. Example: take lying in a specific case to a universal you find out that lying is a contradiction so I should not lie in this specific case.

Categorical Imperative: 1.) freely come up with a maxim or intentional plan in your mind 2.) see if that maxim or plan can be applied to all people and at all times (universally), 3.) If your intentions, plans, or maxims are good, then there will never be a time that it cannot apply.

Example: 1.) I think lying is good 2.) cannot be applied everywhere because society would collapse 3.) my proposed plan to lie is not good

Categorical Imperative is based on the individual’s ability to freely think and act.

Categorical Imperative shows that we must respect everyone’s choices and reasoning process.

Each individual should be allowed to come up with their own life plans. If I think that I know better than another person and manipulate their lives, even for their own good (because I think the consequences would be good), I would be violating the categorical imperative.

Example: 1.) I think manipulating people is good 2.) manipulating people cannot be applied everywhere because humans would be objects and not moral subjects with freewill 3.) my proposed plan to manipulate is not good

Kant argues that consequences do not lead to justice or good morality. We can only judge a person based on their present wishes and reasoning. Future consequences that we think would be good do not make something good. People have to have pure and good intentions so that they can be judge by them.

This is why we use motive in the criminal justice system to determine greater responsibility and punishment.

What is intention? Can it be defined well? Can we have psychological explanations that lessen responsibility?

Death penalty for Kant respects individuals. Their actions lead to a categorical imperative that we must apply the same standard of punishment on them that they applied to their victims.

Intentions (Kant) vs. Consequences theories of Justice

Death Penalty, can use other circumstances and consequences to change punishment? Young children? Death penalty for the mentally handicapped? Time off for good behavior?

Would you pay a lot of money (bad consequences) for justice?

Terrorism should we treat people as objects (torture) (means to a [good] ends)? What if there is imminent danger? Should we use any means?

Ethics in war?

Consent is only based for not being used a means to an end (or as a mere object). Does consent truly lead to good actions and individual happiness?

Exploitation: Sexual Harassment

Self-harm? Drug policy?

Can the Government restrict your choices that harm you? Can do a preemptive limitation of your freedom in order to protect your freedom?

Exploitation: Reduced choice a limiting of autonomy.

Direct manipulation (treat others as a means to an end) limiting of autonomy and disrespect

Implicit threat limiting of autonomy and expectation of harm? How do you understand harm in Kant’s philosophy if it is based on retributive or reciprocal action.

Withholding of information to make informed decisions limiting of autonomy or should it be the consumers responsibility?

Treating people differently is that ranking them and treating them under different objectifying standards? Bigotry? Is this a form of disrespect and using of people not treating them as ends-in-themselves?

Remember: Kant’s form of justice (intentional) different from Consequential view of justice.

Consequentialist view of justice is that the probable good or bad results can excuse an action or justify it.

Positive Freedom vs. Negative Freedom: Which one does Kant endorse?

Kant advocates for autonomy or free self-rule as the basis for any moral action. However, doesn’t an individual require some basic forms of material goods and development to have agency?

Positive Freedom: all citizens have a claim on certain public goods so as to be minimally free and a moral agent.

This is a philosophy advocated by the Left.

Negative Freedom: only individual actions and the respect of their decisions can make a moral society. No other authority has the right to lay claim in the interests of freedom or public good to another person’s goods.