Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?

[John Day]

Michael Sandel's course simply called “ Justice” is one of the most popular courses at Harvard. So popular that WGBH Boston has created a series based on his lectures entitled Justice: What‘s the Right Thing to Do?. I was first made aware of the series when I saw Sandel interviewed by Charlie Rose. While I disagreed with Sandel’s leftist conclusions on redistribution of wealth and other issues, I was intrigued by a series that discusses the philosophic roots of morality and what past philosophers have contributed to society’s notions of it.

An episode of particular interest to me was Episode Six entitled Mind Your Motive, in which Sandel introduces his students to the moral philosophy of Immanuel Kant. Sandel does an impressive job of explaining Kant in easy-to-understand language and I was actually interested enough to take some notes to summarize his lecture, or you can watch the whole thing here: http://justiceharvard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=43&Itemid=13 (55:14 in length)

Sandel starts off by explaining that according to Kant, the source of rights comes from being a rational being and autonomous. (I found this interesting because it’s not far off from Rand’s view of the source of rights) In contrast to Jeremy Batham, Kant does not view pain and pleasure as the "sovereign master" of man, instead our rationality puts us above animals. Kant believes that freedom is when we act against our nature. If a man eats food to satisfy hunger, he is not acting freely, because of his natural inclination to desire food. To be free or autonomous is to act according to a law I give myself. (I.E., not inclination). Freedom is to chose the end for its own sakes, not for means.

Shifting to Kant’s view of morality, Kant believes that it’s wrong to use humans as means. Rather, we should respect them as ends. So what gives an act moral worth according to Kant? Motive and intention; good will is good in itself. Kant presents a struggle between duty and inclination. For example, if a shopkeeper gives a customer exact change he believes it to be in his self-interest rather than out of a sense of duty, is he acting morally? Kant says no, his act is only moral if duty is his motive.

At around this time, one of Sandel’s students asks a very perceptive question. If being autonomous means acting according to a law I give myself, then what stops morality from being completely subjective? The Kantian response is that the universal rationality of man makes for a universal morality. (An answer which I find very unconvincing) Sandel then gets into an explanation of Kant’s formulations of categorical imperative such as the Formula of Universal Law and the Formula of Humanity as an End.

Obviously, as an Objectivist, I disagree strongly with Kant’s notions of morality (for Ayn Rand and myself, self-interest is the very essence and purpose of morality); but I always appreciate the chance to get a better understanding of philosophic ideas. One cannot fully debate an idea until one understands it.

[Christopher]

Haven't studied Kant, haven't yet watched the lecture. So,

The question is: can man in full volitional and rational behavior act non-morally? Rand would say no (because her philosophy is founded on these premises). If Kant founds his morality on rationality and man's rationality as a means (i.e. volition), does this mean there is some agreement between the two, albeit in different languages?

Also as an aside, it is very spiritual to believe that morality is founded on man's consciousness as a means, as a causal agent. Buddha-esque. I see Rand's belief as having this spirit. If man feels the divine in himself, it clearly exists and merely requires interpretation. Perhaps one way to understand an aspect of this divinity from an Objectivist standpoint is to define it as the state in which man's volition is fully active and the related experience of being an absolute means and causal agent within the universe.

[BaalChatzaf]

Michael Sandel's course simply called " Justice" is one of the most popular courses at Harvard. So popular that WGBH Boston has created a series based on his lectures entitled Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?. I was first made aware of the series when I saw Sandel interviewed by Charlie Rose. While I disagreed with Sandel's leftist conclusions on redistribution of wealth and other issues, I was intrigued by a series that discusses the philosophic roots of morality and what past philosophers have contributed to society's notions of it.

An episode of particular interest to me was Episode Six entitled Mind Your Motive, in which Sandel introduces his students to the moral philosophy of Immanuel Kant. Sandel does an impressive job of explaining Kant in easy-to-understand language and I was actually interested enough to take some notes to summarize his lecture, or you can watch the whole thing here: http://justiceharvar...id=43&Itemid=13 (55:14 in length)

Sandel starts off by explaining that according to Kant, the source of rights comes from being a rational being and autonomous. (I found this interesting because it's not far off from Rand's view of the source of rights) In contrast to Jeremy Batham, Kant does not view pain and pleasure as the "sovereign master" of man, instead our rationality puts us above animals. Kant believes that freedom is when we act against our nature. If a man eats food to satisfy hunger, he is not acting freely, because of his natural inclination to desire food. To be free or autonomous is to act according to a law I give myself. (I.E., not inclination). Freedom is to chose the end for its own sakes, not for means.

Shifting to Kant's view of morality, Kant believes that it's wrong to use humans as means. Rather, we should respect them as ends. So what gives an act moral worth according to Kant? Motive and intention; good will is good in itself. Kant presents a struggle between duty and inclination. For example, if a shopkeeper gives a customer exact change he believes it to be in his self-interest rather than out of a sense of duty, is he acting morally? Kant says no, his act is only moral if duty is his motive.

At around this time, one of Sandel's students asks a very perceptive question. If being autonomous means acting according to a law I give myself, then what stops morality from being completely subjective? The Kantian response is that the universal rationality of man makes for a universal morality. (An answer which I find very unconvincing) Sandel then gets into an explanation of Kant's formulations of categorical imperative such as the Formula of Universal Law and the Formula of Humanity as an End.

Obviously, as an Objectivist, I disagree strongly with Kant's notions of morality (for Ayn Rand and myself, self-interest is the very essence and purpose of morality); but I always appreciate the chance to get a better understanding of philosophic ideas. One cannot fully debate an idea until one understands it.

Kant was wrong on at least two points:

1. Not every human being is capable of reason.

2. Not all human beings have a "certain dignity". What about pedophiles and thugs? They are garbage condemned by their own acts.

Immanuel Kant, down in flames!

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Chris Grieb]

John; Thanks for the heads up about "Justice". I am looking forward to reading the book and will look more into Dr. Sandel's views.

[Christopher]

John,

This was an absolutely amazing video. Thank you for sharing it.

It is my interpretation from watching this video that Kant bases his moral philosophy on reason, on autonomy, and on man (humanity) as an end in himself. Do you agree? Further, it seems that Kant is significantly subsumed by Objectivist philosophy and indeed shows strengths absent from Objectivism.

It appears to me that the vices of Kant's position are the following (both of which I give defenses for):

1. There is no explicit regard for objective consequences -in the lecture-. However, if man acts on reason, then reason compels man to ensure his actions do not violate humanity; therefore, even though man does not act for consequence, he is rationally forced to consider consequence to ensure that he does not violate humanity and universality.

2. Kant does not accept emotion as a volitional input to reason. Therefore, a decision to reduce pain is immoral by definition. However, emotions might be allowed to help guide behavior if emotions are reasoned about to the degree Objectivism reasoned about them. In other words, if emotions symbolize necessities for the survival and functioning of man's life, they can be considered as worthy information towards guiding decisions.

It appears the virtues of Kant's position above Objectivism are the recognition of volitional reason over impulse, namely:

1. Kant considers volition far more in-depth than Rand. Whereas Kant asserts that reducing hunger for the sake of reducing hunger is not moral, he would consider reducing hunger for the survival of man (a reasoning animal) as moral provided it is reasoned and motivated as such. Conversely, Rand would likely assert that man reducing hunger, whether by impulse or reasoning about life, are of equal moral weight provided the behaviors man engages in to reduce hunger do not infringe on the rights of others. ... basically, Rand never addresses the fact that to be guided by impulse is to infringe on one's own volitional capabilities precisely because impulses violate one's ability to take fully conscious action... the force of the action is not will, it is other than will, other than volition, and will is only partially along for the ride.

Let us continue this discussion, this is very interesting. Where do you believe Objectivism can find fault with Kant, and how might these faults be demonstrated through example?

[John Day]

It appears the virtues of Kant's position above Objectivism are the recognition of volitional reason over impulse, namely:

1. Kant considers volition far more in-depth than Rand. Whereas Kant asserts that reducing hunger for the sake of reducing hunger is not moral, he would consider reducing hunger for the survival of man (a reasoning animal) as moral provided it is reasoned and motivated as such. Conversely, Rand would likely assert that man reducing hunger, whether by impulse or reasoning about life, are of equal moral weight provided the behaviors man engages in to reduce hunger do not infringe on the rights of others. ... basically, Rand never addresses the fact that to be guided by impulse is to infringe on one's own volitional capabilities precisely because impulses violate one's ability to take fully conscious action... the force of the action is not will, it is other than will, other than volition, and will is only partially along for the ride.

Christopher,

Rand did not believe that man possesses any form of instinct. She believed that all of man’s knowledge is obtained through consciousness and understanding of abstractions. While I would agree with her that that is the fundamental difference between humans and animals, I would add that humans still possess a limited sense of instinct. The refusal of Rand to admit to the existence of human instinct is one of biggest flaws of her philosophy and largely the reason why she dismissed evolution as “just a theory.”

But regardless of her lack of understanding biology (and arguably human nature), she still wrote the best one sentence summary of morality I have ever encountered: “All that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; all that which destroys it is the evil.” As I apply that to my understanding, I would say that an instinctual act, so long as it’s “proper to the life of a rational being” is moral; but one should never abdicate his rational faculties in favor of instinct.

[anonrobt]

It appears the virtues of Kant's position above Objectivism are the recognition of volitional reason over impulse, namely:

1. Kant considers volition far more in-depth than Rand. Whereas Kant asserts that reducing hunger for the sake of reducing hunger is not moral, he would consider reducing hunger for the survival of man (a reasoning animal) as moral provided it is reasoned and motivated as such. Conversely, Rand would likely assert that man reducing hunger, whether by impulse or reasoning about life, are of equal moral weight provided the behaviors man engages in to reduce hunger do not infringe on the rights of others. ... basically, Rand never addresses the fact that to be guided by impulse is to infringe on one's own volitional capabilities precisely because impulses violate one's ability to take fully conscious action... the force of the action is not will, it is other than will, other than volition, and will is only partially along for the ride.

Christopher,

Rand did not believe that man possesses any form of instinct. She believed that all of man’s knowledge is obtained through consciousness and understanding of abstractions. While I would agree with her that that is the fundamental difference between humans and animals, I would add that humans still possess a limited sense of instinct. The refusal of Rand to admit to the existence of human instinct is one of biggest flaws of her philosophy and largely the reason why she dismissed evolution as “just a theory.”

But regardless of her lack of understanding biology (and arguably human nature), she still wrote the best one sentence summary of morality I have ever encountered: “All that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; all that which destroys it is the evil.” As I apply that to my understanding, I would say that an instinctual act, so long as it’s “proper to the life of a rational being” is moral; but one should never abdicate his rational faculties in favor of instinct.

If you're wanting to claim that, then ye have to DEFINE 'Instinct'...

[and by her definition, you DON'T have any [see Galt's speech]...]