anthony Posted November 12, 2012 Posted November 12, 2012 So Kant dismisses the individual, except for his duty to 'rationality'?Which devolves into 'good for all', in the end - anyway.Principles detached from reality, individual from his purpose, and value from valuer, heis a true rationalist-utilitarian, by Ghs's summary. Eggs have to be broken to make the omelette, and all that. Peikoff's Hitler connectionis quite credible in this light.My feeling is this is a worse indictment of Kant than prior. At least Comte wasmore obviously forthright in his altruism.
George H. Smith Posted November 12, 2012 Author Posted November 12, 2012 So Kant dismisses the individual, except for his duty to 'rationality'?Which devolves into 'good for all', in the end - anyway.Principles detached from reality, individual from his purpose, and value from valuer, heis a true rationalist-utilitarian, by Ghs's summary.Eggs have to be broken to make the omelette, and all that. Peikoff's Hitler connectionis quite credible in this light.My feeling is this is a worse indictment of Kant than prior. At least Comte wasmore obviously forthright in his altruism.Kant's ethics was strongly individualistic throughout. The basic purpose of his categorical imperative, which was essentially a formulation of a principle of of justice, was to defend and preserve the moral "autonomy" (he may have coined the word) of individuals. Autonomy, as Kant saw the matter, means morally self-legislating. The essence of rationality, he argued, is the ability of individuals to act on their own judgments on the basis of reason, without being compelled by others. Hence the motto Kant assigned to the Enlightenment: "Dare to think for yourself!"Sound like Hitler to you? Sound like anything you ever heard Peikoff say about Kant? You might as well say that Rand, because she defended what she called "selfishness," favored trampling on the rights of other people and was therefore a type of Nazi.Ghs
George H. Smith Posted November 12, 2012 Author Posted November 12, 2012 Here is a decent summary of Kant's theory of justice, as presented by John Ladd in the Translator's Introduction to Kant's Metaphysical Elements of Justice (Bobbs-Merrill, 1965):Liberty (negative freedom) and violence are correlative opposites; where there is liberty there is no violence, and where there is violence there is no liberty. Man's innate right to liberty (freedom) consists in the right to be free from violence, and, indeed, all man's legal rights are derivable from this concept. Now, as already noted, the basis of man's right to liberty is the fact that he is an autonomous moral being, that is, a sovereign lawmaker, as well as a subject to the law (the moral law) [i.e., the categorical imperative, according to which we should never treat others merely as means to our ends but as ends in themselves]....Accordingly, any transgression of the bounds of lawful liberty is illegitimate It is ipso facto an infringement of someone else's liberty, and, as such, is necessarily an act of violence. Violence is wrong, therefore, because it is an infringement of lawful liberty.Coercion is, of course, permitted, but only if it is used to prevent violence or, more generally to protect liberty. Otherwise, it is simply violence. The rightful function of the political order is to control violence and thus to protect liberty....The foundation of political authority, then, is man's innate right right to live in peace and freedom, which, incidentally, includes his right to have his property secure and guaranteed....Legitimate coercion -- that is, coercion that is used to counterbalance illegitimate coercion (violence) -- will on reflection be seen to be equivalent to coercion consistent with the freedom of everyone in accordance with universal laws. [Kant called this condition of equal freedom a "Kingdom of Ends," because each person is free to pursue his own ends, as he sees fit, so long as he respects the rights of others to do the same.]Sieg Heil, mein Kant! Ghs
Jonathan Posted November 12, 2012 Posted November 12, 2012 Kant's basic position may be put as follows: An action has moral value only if one does it as a matter of principle, i.e., because it is the rational thing to do. Only in this way does a person follow the dictates of pure reason without allowing personal feelings, whether for oneself or for others, to interfere with one's rational judgment.Yeah. When Objectivists read Kant, they should do two things: First, calm the fuck down and get control of your emotions, and then, second, forget about Rand's rants about "duty" because they have nothing to do with Kant's use of the term, and when you come across his use of "duty," substitute the word "principle."If anyone wants to see why many non-Objectivists have a view of Objectivists as hyperventilating, irrational, cultist kookballs, read and understand Kant, and then go back and see how distorted Rand's view of him is, and how blinded and unjustly enraged she appears to be:http://aynrandlexico...xicon/duty.htmlJ
Jonathan Posted November 12, 2012 Posted November 12, 2012 Sieg Heil, mein Kant!More proof of Kant's bloodthirsty Naziism from Guyer's Kant (from pages 294-5, 363):We cannot leave Kant's political philosophy without discussing his 1795 pamphlet Toward Perpetual Peace......Kant first writes that even in a condition of warfare among any kinds of states there are certain "preliminary articles" that can eliminate causes of future wars, such as the prohibition of dynastic acquisition of states, standing armies, national debts for making war, "forcible interference in the constitution and government of another state," and "acts of hostility as would have to make mutual trust impossible during a future peace," such as assassinations, encouragement of treason within another state, and so on (PP, 8:344-6). But in the long run, Kant holds that there can only be perpetual peace if all states become republics governed by the will of the whole people rather than by the whims of autocrats, especially, as is already implicit in the first preliminary article, autocrats who regard whole states as their personal property, which can be enlarged or put at risk entirely at their own choice.The three "definitive articles" for perpetual peace are thus that "The civil constitution in every state shall be repubican" (PP, 8:349), that "The right of nations shall be based on a federalism of free states" (8:354), and that there shall be "Cosmopolitan right" consisting in "conditions of universal hospitality" (8:358). Under the last of these articles Kant launches a powerful attack upon the rampant European colonialism of his own time, arguing that no matter what the cultural and political conditions of another region are, foreigners have no more than the right to visit in order to offer their goods and ideas, never a right to establish themselves forcibly in another people's territory no matter how exalted or crass their aims may be....As Kant famously writes:When the consent of the citizens of a state is required in order to decide whether there shall be war or not (and it cannot be otherwise in [the republican] constitution), nothing is more natural than that they will be very hesitant to begin such a bad game, since they would have to take upon themselves all the hardships of war (such as themselves doing the fighting and paying the costs of the war from their own belongings...); on the other hand, under a constitution in which subjects are not citizens of the state, which is therefore not republican, [deciding upon war] is the easiest thing in the world; because the head of state is not a member of the state but its proprietor and gives up nothing at all of his feasts, hunts, pleasure palaces, court festivals, and so forth he can decide upon war, as upon a kind of pleasure party, for insignificant cause. (PP,8:350)J
George H. Smith Posted November 12, 2012 Author Posted November 12, 2012 Here is one of Kant's statements of individual rights, from The Metaphysical Elements of Justice, trans. John Ladd, pp. 43-44:Freedom (independence from the constraint of another's will), insofar as it is compatible with the freedom of everyone else in accordance with a universal law, is the one sole and original right that belongs to every human being by virtue of his humanity.This was really the ultimate destination of Kant's categorical imperative. He believed that we have a moral duty to respect the rights of others and should do so as a matter of principle, even if we think that violating their rights might serve our own interests or the interests of others. Individual rights should be inviolable, according to Kant, because they derive from the moral autonomy of individuals, i.e., from their rational nature. Only in a society in which individual rights are respected can individuals truly exercise their reason and moral autonomy.In other words, one should deal with others voluntarily or not at all. Coercion can legitimately be used only in the defense of rights.There is considerable similarity between Kant's conception of rights and that defended by Rand. One point of difference might appear in their treatment of emergency situations. Kant, unlike Rand, believed that the violation of rights is never justified, even when necessary to preserve one's own life.Ghs
anthony Posted November 12, 2012 Posted November 12, 2012 Breathing quite normally, thank you, J! I've no beef with Kant - and don't know enough - but only going by Ghs's explanation in #25 he comes over as a detached rationalist to me. "Only the impartial principles of reason - as universally applied, regardless of individualmotives and goals - can possibly provide the foundation for a rational ethics.Any other standard would be too variable and insecure."[Ghs](How was Kant on the mind-body 'dichotomy', I wonder?)
anthony Posted November 12, 2012 Posted November 12, 2012 Ghs, Useful stuff on Kant on rights: astonishing, in fact.
George H. Smith Posted November 12, 2012 Author Posted November 12, 2012 Yeah. When Objectivists read Kant, they should do two things: First, calm the fuck down and get control of your emotions, and then, second, forget about Rand's rants about "duty" because they have nothing to do with Kant's use of the term, and when you come across his use of "duty," substitute the word "principle."Ironically perhaps, Rand sometimes spoke of duties to oneself, e.g, the duty to be happy and the duty to be rational. Kant explicitly denied that we have a duty to pursue happiness (this, he thought, should be up to each individual) , but he did agree that we have a duty to be rational.Ghs
Guyau Posted November 12, 2012 Posted November 12, 2012 Principle – Prinzip, GrundsatzDuty – PflichtObligation – Obliegenheit, VerbindlichkeitFrom Allen Wood in Kantian Ethics (2008):Duty is not only a crucial concept in Kant’s ethics but also in effect a technical term in Kantian vocabulary. Whatever affinity the Kantian sense of “duty” may have with the ordinary meaning of the word in English (or of Pflict in German), any hope we might have of gaining a sympathetic hearing for Kantian ethics must depend on our putting some distance between the technical Kantian meaning of this word and the sense, and even some of the pragmatics, of the term as it is commonly used. (158)For Kant “duty” refers solely to the respect we owe to humanity in ourselves and others and to the various forms of moral self-constraint that we must exercise, when necessary, in order to be rationally self-governing beings. (159)Those are just elementary teasers; Wood can lead one through Kant’s fuller conception. Any educated person can read and comprehend somewhat the first of Kant’s three works devoted entirely to ethics: Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Kant designed it that way, and he succeeded. Everyone did read it. Rand likely read it too.But Pflict or duty comes with a long heritage already set in the mind of the reader. The pastor and the conscription officer are delighted to point to Kant and say “Yes, duty.” Same old stuff, secular rationale, to the same old social purposes, for most readers across more than two centuries. I highly recommend Wood’s book, as first after Groundwork. He has sections on acting from duty, the duty to act from duty, Kant’s concept of duty, the system of duties, the principle of ethical duties, duties to oneself, duties of love and respect, and the duty of self-knowledge.Wood’s book comprehends all of Kant’s writings on ethics. Results of my own studies of Kant’s ethics (also spanning all his writings on ethics), with comparison to Rand’s, begin here.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Related:Aristotle, Kant, and the StoicsRethinking Happiness and DutyEngstrom and Whiting, editors (1996)
anthony Posted November 13, 2012 Posted November 13, 2012 Yeah. When Objectivists read Kant, they should do two things: First, calm the fuck down and get control of your emotions, and then, second, forget about Rand's rants about "duty" because they have nothing to do with Kant's use of the term, and when you come across his use of "duty," substitute the word "principle."Ironically perhaps, Rand sometimes spoke of duties to oneself, e.g, the duty to be happy and the duty to be rational. Kant explicitly denied that we have a duty to pursue happiness (this, he thought, should be up to each individual) , but he did agree that we have a duty to be rational.GhsThe simple substitution of "principle" for "duty" (in Kant) as J. suggests, causes more problems than solutions, I think. If duty is interchangeable with principle, then the principle IS one of duty.Duty to whom or what? I think we're stuck with the connotation of duty being 1. an arduous task, not willingly chosen 2. an act carried out in favor of someone else. (My take.)Conversely, the 'duties' as put forward by Rand are always in the favor of the actor (excepting her one categorical imperative: the NIOF principle) such as rationality, virtue, happiness - also, as I perceive AR's intention, the actions would be an unforced, self-enhancing and celebratory experience. ------Stephen writes: "The pastor and the conscription officer are delighted to point to Kant, and say "Yes, duty."" Which warps Kant's intended, but complex, meaning to any authoritarian ends: psychological coercion and obedience.(umm, Nazism?).;)Stephen, in his linked essay - the aptly titled "Kant's Wrestle with Happiness and Life"- furthers the point:"Duties are things owed. I think that to reduce the idea of what ought to be done to what is owed is an impoverishment of the idea. A truer way of moral life is to perceive and nurture value.Let value and valuation bring forth virtues and things owed."[boydstun]------All this, Kant's ethics and rights, is valuably insightful for me. Kant cannot be easily over-looked and pigeon-holed. Though I never did think so.No doubt brilliant, but I'm thinking also "conflicted" - in ethics Kant didn't seem to be able to resolve the pragmatic (or "prudential") with his idealism. (I'm considering for now, til I've understood more.)
merjet Posted November 13, 2012 Posted November 13, 2012 Here is one of Kant's statements of individual rights, from The Metaphysical Elements of Justice, trans. John Ladd, pp. 43-44:Freedom (independence from the constraint of another's will), insofar as it is compatible with the freedom of everyone else in accordance with a universal law, is the one sole and original right that belongs to every human being by virtue of his humanity.This was really the ultimate destination of Kant's categorical imperative. He believed that we have a moral duty to respect the rights of others and should do so as a matter of principle, even if we think that violating their rights might serve our own interests or the interests of others. Individual rights should be inviolable, according to Kant, because they derive from the moral autonomy of individuals, i.e., from their rational nature. Only in a society in which individual rights are respected can individuals truly exercise their reason and moral autonomy.In other words, one should deal with others voluntarily or not at all. Coercion can legitimately be used only in the defense of rights.There is considerable similarity between Kant's conception of rights and that defended by Rand. One point of difference might appear in their treatment of emergency situations. Kant, unlike Rand, believed that the violation of rights is never justified, even when necessary to preserve one's own life.To add to this, readers of Ayn Rand are familiar with her view of force and fraud, for which "coercion" and "deception" are synonyms used by Kant (translated, of course).According to the Formula of Humanity, coercion and deception are the most fundamental wrongdoing to others -- the roots of all evil. Coercion and deception violate the conditions of possible assent, and all the actions which depend for their nature and efficacy on their coercive or deceptive character are ones that others cannot assent to. Coercion and deception also make it impossible for others to contribute to our ends. This in turn makes it impossible, according to Kant's value theory, for the ends of such actions to be good (Creating the Kingdom of Ends, p. 140).....Physical coercion treats someone's person as a tool; lying treats someone's reason as a tool. This is why Kant finds it so horrifying; it is a direct violation of autonomy.....To treat another with respect is to treat him as if he were using his reason and as far as possible as if he were using it well (ibid., p. 141). I wonder what Rand might have said about this after reading it with blanks replacing the words indicating the views of Kant.
George H. Smith Posted November 13, 2012 Author Posted November 13, 2012 Ayn Rand and Altruism, Part 4"Smith discusses Ayn Rand's notion of self-sacrifice and the crucial role that duty played in her theory of altruism."My Cato Essay #53 is now up.Ghs
George H. Smith Posted November 20, 2012 Author Posted November 20, 2012 Ayn Rand and Altruism, Part 5 "Smith discusses why Ayn Rand believed that altruism is incompatible with benevolence and charitable actions."My Cato Essay #54 is now up. This is the final installment of the series.Ghs
merjet Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 You wrote, "many detractors of Ayn Rand who insist on portraying her as an unreformed Ebenezer Scrooge in a bad mood."Succinct description. M. Huemer (JARS 2002) examines Rand’s egoism and says the following. Rand was not an egoist in the usual philosophic meaning: ethical egoism (EE) – The only reason I can ever have for doing anything is that it would serve my own interests. More restrictive, G.E. Moore even said the egoist says his/her own happiness is the sole good (261). Huemer says: “Nowhere in her [Rand’s] works will one find a statement that looks like EE. Nor is there, to my knowledge, even the statement that a person should always pursue only his own welfare." The last 9 words literally fit the way detractors portray her version of egoism.You wrote, "since altruism cannot be consistently practiced (it is impossible to sacrifice everyone to everyone)." Did Rand say that somewhere? I couldn't find it with a brief search on The Objectivism Research CD-ROM. I have supposed the reason was that an individual who consistently practiced altruism would soon die by starvation or lack of water.
BaalChatzaf Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 Let's see if I got the drift: Ayn Rand hung a bum rap on Kant. Is that right?
George H. Smith Posted March 31, 2013 Author Posted March 31, 2013 You wrote, "many detractors of Ayn Rand who insist on portraying her as an unreformed Ebenezer Scrooge in a bad mood."Succinct description. M. Huemer (JARS 2002) examines Rand’s egoism and says the following. Rand was not an egoist in the usual philosophic meaning: ethical egoism (EE) – The only reason I can ever have for doing anything is that it would serve my own interests. More restrictive, G.E. Moore even said the egoist says his/her own happiness is the sole good (261). Huemer says: “Nowhere in her [Rand’s] works will one find a statement that looks like EE. Nor is there, to my knowledge, even the statement that a person should always pursue only his own welfare." The last 9 words literally fit the way detractors portray her version of egoism.You wrote, "since altruism cannot be consistently practiced (it is impossible to sacrifice everyone to everyone)." Did Rand say that somewhere? I couldn't find it with a brief search on The Objectivism Research CD-ROM. I have supposed the reason was that an individual who consistently practiced altruism would soon die by starvation or lack of water.My statement that altruism, according to Rand, cannot be consistently practiced was based in part on passages that I quoted in Part 3, such as the statement by Toohey: "Preach selflessness. Tell man that he must live for others. Tell men that altruism is the ideal. Not a single one of them has ever achieved it and not a single one ever will." I also quoted Rand as follows: "No human beings can accept altruism fully and consciously—i.e., accept the role of sacrificial animals" (The Ayn Rand Letter, 6 Nov. 1972). There are other similar passages in Rand as well, though I did not quote them.Ghs
Guyau Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 . . .You [George] wrote, "since altruism cannot be consistently practiced (it is impossible to sacrifice everyone to everyone)." Did Rand say that somewhere? I couldn't find it with a brief search on The Objectivism Research CD-ROM. I have supposed the reason was that an individual who consistently practiced altruism would soon die by starvation or lack of water.Merlin, on that paragraph, I recall Schultz expressing the incoherence of making it a principle that everyone should live for everyone else. In Peanuts he had a strip in which one of the children, perhaps Linus, is told that our purpose on earth is to serve others. The final frame is the child’s query: What are the others for?In a quick look, I have found one place of Rand stating that theoretical defect of altruism, along with projection of how that defect cashes out in mutual poverty. ET speaking: “Let all live for all. Let all sacrifice and none profit. Let all suffer and none enjoy. Let progress stop. Let all stagnate.” – F (HR XIV 694)Rand also gets near that theoretical defect of altruism in bringing forth cases of exploited classes and exploiting classes created by altruism in practical effect. But her main line seems to be appeal to the impossibility of any individual being a total altruist without becoming bitter and hostile. Here is some of that line:Tell man that he must live for others. Tell men that altruism is the ideal. Not a single one of them has ever achieved it and not a single one of them ever will. His every instinct screams against it. – F (HR XIV 690) [George noted this one in #42.]You do not care to allow rewards to be won by successful production—you are now running a race in which rewards are won by successful plunder. You called it selfish and cruel that men should trade value for value—you have now established an unselfish society where they trade extortion for extortion. – AS (1065)Soviet Russia is the ultimate result, the final product, the full, consistent embodiment of the altruist morality in practice; it represents the only way that that morality can ever be practiced. – "Conservatism: An Obituary" (’62)
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now