Actually, I think it's RP. Ooooooh, Erin TO Quoting Mike Geary <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > PR: > > My reading of Kant, on the other hand, while open to criticism, is, of > > course, correct. > > There you go. A man after my own heart! > > You go, guy. > > Mike Geary > still correctly me > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Paul" <robert.paul@xxxxxxxx> > To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 5:02 PM > Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Ye Modern Dialectic > > > > Walter wrote: > > > >> Robert does identify a problem in Kant's ethics, though I do not believe > >> it is as severe as he renders it. (My reading of Kant is open to > >> criticism. What an odd thing to say. A case of "one thought too > >> many"?) > > > > My reading of Kant, on the other hand, while open to criticism, is, of > > course, correct. > > > > Briefly, here's where Walter and I may disagree. I can't extract from Kant > > > any such fine-grained parsing of the descriptions of actions as he seems > > able to. A maxim, for all practical purposes either just is, or has as its > > > essential component, the description of an action. Kant cannot see the > > difference between the lying-to-save case, and the lying-for-gain case: to > > > him they're just lying. This seems clear from his insistence, which Walter > > > notes, that lying is always 'categorically forbidden.' Yet lying-to-save > > is different from lying-for-gain, in pretty much the same way that running > > > to catch a bus and running while taking part in a marathon are different. > > > They are different actions; and if someone wants to say that au fond, they > > > both reduce to 'just running,' he have a somewhat mechanical view of the > > world. Yet if Kant were to rely in such reductionism ('Well, when you get > > > right down to it, they're no different, being in the one case both just > > lying and in the other both just running,' he would have shot himself in > > the foot, for he would be unable to say what Walter has pointed out he > > _does_ say, about the role of motives, intentions, purposes, and the like, > > > in assessing actions, or proposed actions. > > > > As I'm puzzled, in the good sense, about how an action can just be done > > for (as I'll put it) no reason, except pure duty, I'll stop and try to > > think about this for awhile. > > > > Robert Paul > > Reed College > > > >> I think we can safely claim that Kant was very much attuned to the > >> importance of motive and purpose in assessing the moral worth of actions > >> and maxims. This is why Kant typically provides these aspects of a maxim > >> in his discussions of them. His "maxim schema" is more accurately > >> represented by: "In circumstances C, I will do A for the purpose of P." > >> The lying promise discussion is the best known of Kant's maxims. It is > >> through such a structure that any action is defined as the kind of maxim > >> it is - i.e., prudential, morally permissible, forbidden, etc.. As I see > >> it, a maxim *expresses* the motive and purpose of the agent and the > >> action > >> comes to be *defined* as the particular action it is through the > >> relationship between motive, purpose and act expressed in the maxim. > >> I think that an action on its own is not open to moral assessment on > >> Kant's terms. (It's legal status is a different matter.) This despite > his > >> claim near the end of his life, that the act of lying is always > >> categorically forbidden. (I believe Kant at times errs in applying his > >> theory to specific circumstances.) In his prime though, Kant recognized > >> that motive and purpose are indispensible ingredients of moral worth. > The > >> examples in the Groundwork all ride on this recognition. In the case of > >> duties of wide latitude, judgment is required and, yes, Kant could have > >> said more about the kind of judgment that interested Aristotle. I think > >> he > >> simply had other fish to fry. > >> > >> We have good grounds for attributing to Kant > >> a perspicuous recognition of the differences involved in performing the > >> act of C: giving to charity (acting benevolently): > >> 1. Cing from the motive of augmenting (or in W's case, restoring) one's > >> reputation > >> 2. Cing because one wants to help others in need and this from a love of > >> mankind > >> 3. Cing from the motive in 2 where C is morally permissible (promotes > the > >> dignity, moral worth, of agent and recipient and is thus > >> universalizable.) > >> 4. Cing in order to soothe one's conscience (i.e., I murder Paul Stone > >> and > >> then make a huge donation to the Evangelical Society for the Elimination > >> of Terror in the World.) > >> > >> I hope most of this is right. > >> > >> Cheers, Walter > >> > >> On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Robert Paul wrote: > >> > >> > >>>Walter is right: this is a poorly defined (or expressed) maxim: but such > >>>vagueness and generality in the formulation of maxims never seems to > >>>have given Kant much pause. He seems not to have realized that the > >>>specificity of maxims can change the outcome of their tests against the > >>>Procrustean illusion of the CI: given the maxim schema 'do x,' the > >>>generality or specificity of the substitution instances of x obviously > >>>matter. But Kant never distinguishes between the maxim 'tell a lie,' and > >>>the maxim 'tell a lie in order to save the life of an innocent person,' > >>>except to deny that the latter is a different action from the former, as > >>>if 'lying' were all one thing and instances of it all the same 'action.' > >>>What one might propose to do is seldom fine-grained enough in Kant's own > >>>account to allow for such distinctions. It as if he were blind to the > >>>distinction between 'feed a child' and 'feed a starving child.' > >>> > >>>Robert Paul > >>>The Reed Institute > >>>------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, > >>>digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html > >>> > >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, > >> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, > > digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, > digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html > -- Erin ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html