On Kant's Ethical Theory


merjet

Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...

I didn't include them in the article, but I can imagine situations in which it is appropriate to exclude one's personal interest in judgment. However, that does not mean everyone's personal interests should be excluded like in Kant's ethics.
1. A rule-maker and umpire for baseball. The rules should be made and enforced without bias. An umpire's only interest should be to be objective and fair, without personal bias such as favoring a particular team or player.
2. A legislator or judge or juror in a court of law. Again, such person's only interest should be to be objective and fair, without personal bias such as favoring particular constituents, the plaintiff or defense.
The legislator example best reflects Kant's manner of thought, since he posited each person as a "moral legislator."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm curious, Merlin, what is your background with Kant? Have you studied his work formally -- in a formal academic setting, with the opportunity to question and receive feedback and guidance from non-Objectivist professors about your interpretations and understanding of his ideas -- or have you studied him on your own, casually, and without feedback from non-Objectivist experts?

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither. I'm curious why you asked.

I asked because, in reading your RoR piece and the discussion that followed, I got the impression that you've never studied Kant formally or had the opportunity to receive expert feedback from professors whose views of Kant haven't been tainted by Objectivist misinterpretations, but I also got the impression that you've been exposed to at least some non-Objectivist feedback (though not on an expert level), and that it has affected you to a certain degree, which I think is good. You don't seem to toe the Objectivist line on Kant, but you also don't seem to realize yet how badly Objectivists have misunderstood and misrepresented Kant, and how your own view of him is still being distorted by looking at him through a Randian lens.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I asked because, in reading your RoR piece and the discussion that followed, I got the impression that you've never studied Kant formally or had the opportunity to receive expert feedback from professors whose views of Kant haven't been tainted by Objectivist misinterpretations, but I also got the impression that you've been exposed to at least some non-Objectivist feedback (though not on an expert level), and that it has affected you to a certain degree, which I think is good. You don't seem to toe the Objectivist line on Kant, but you also don't seem to realize yet how badly Objectivists have misunderstood and misrepresented Kant, and how your own view of him is still being distorted by looking at him through a Randian lens.

I've read books by Kant and other books by non-Objectivists about his philosophy.

My article included Rand's misrepresentation of Kant. That of others wasn't my concern.

You have a long way to go to prove your bald assertions that my view of Kant is distorted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read books by Kant and other books by non-Objectivists about his philosophy.

My article included Rand's misrepresentation of Kant. That of others wasn't my concern.

You have a long way to go to prove your bald assertions that my view of Kant is distorted.

I didn't join the discussion to prove anything, but only to ask about your educational background re Kant. I've learned what I wanted to know.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now