Here's something I've been pondering lately...
Let's take one of Kant's formulations of the categorical imperative: treat all subjects as ends, not means. All of us Christians should look at this, and certainly agree, right? We should look at subjects, persons really, and see beings created with dignity in the image of God. Thus, we should treat these persons with the dignity bestowed upon them by their Creator, and treat them as ends in themsleves, never as merely means toward our own ends.
Now, for those of you who are familiar with logic, what would it mean to interpret Kant's imperative from a Boolean perspective? Clearly, Kant's imperative is an A-type categorical, so it's universal. Boolean logic interprets such universals (either A or E type categoricals, e.g., the A, all S are P, or the E, no S are P) as having no existential import. In other words, the categorical proposition implies nothing about the actual existence of the subject term. Further, pretend for a moment that you are a maniacal, power-hungry wacko, that needs to use people as means to get to the top. At the same time you recognize that treating subjects as means is morally reprehensible; in other words, you agree with Kant's categorical imperative. Would it be possible for this maniacal, power-hungry wacko to agree with Kant's categorical imperative, but to interpret it in a Boolean fashion? Would it be possible to say, "Yes, Kant, you are absolutely right! All subjects should be treated as ends, not means. Unfortunately, your categorical impertative is universal, and therefore has not existential import. I deny that there are such real things as subjects (for reasons x, y, and z), and am therefore fully capable (in a moral sense) of using people as the means to get what I really want--power; people are not subjects"?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
This is a much older problem. Essence and existence.
Is existence the last attribute of an essence? Is existence the first thing we learn of an essence?
Philosophy does not take place in personal reverie, but in the courtroom of conscience (what else does the "con" designate but "other people" and what is it they are seeking but to know ("scire") what is happening and hence what is to be done?). The member of the excluded category speaks for itself. My rule is, you always know when you have been run over by a rhinerceros. You make a note of someone crashing your epistemological party. If you jam the event into your system and your system breaks (in that you do not categorize it fairly), your distress is evident to others. They correlate your distress with your inattention to the despised. They deem you in bad faith and punish you so as to bring to you the pain you bring to the despised by your inattention (such as your unjust use of military force), so that you may identify with the despised, and society be healed.
Post a Comment