I consider Immanuel Kant's Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals to be one of the most difficult books, if not the most difficult book, that I have ever read. It is significantly shorter than either Finnegans Wake or Gödel, Escher, Bach, yet somehow it seems far more dense in its content. It is riddled with "a priori" and "a posteriori" statements that require multiple readings in order to parse, let a lone follow. In fact, it is so dense as to almost prove unreadable--making it far easier to read, for example, a scholar's summary. The only danger with doing so, however, is that it is subject to that scholar's interpretation. Nevertheless, I should like to point out the "good bits" with my own selective, somewhat non-scholarly filter (wikipedia).
The first formulation, or "Formula of Universal Law," basically says, start with a maxim that you want to test for moral value. Examine the maxim in a hypothetical world where it happens. Imagine yourself on the receiving end (or as any other participant) in that maxim. If there are inconsistencies in moral values, then the behavior is not acceptable. If it is consistent, it is moral. In some sense, this is a more secular version of the so-called "Golden Rule" (which is itself not entirely dissimilar from Hammurabi's Code). Reciprocity and consistency: what is good for you is good for everyone, and vice-versa.
The second and third formulations say something that is, in my opinion, far more important. Without them, it is very easy to find significant flaws in the first formulation. These formulations say that the ends to not justify the means, but that human beings are ends to themselves, and all rational, thinking individuals are ends of the universe. In the previously mentioned Veritatis Splendor (paragraph 72), Pope John Paul II claims that this is a long held Catholic Church position, though it emanates from Divine Law rather than reason, while Joseph Ratzinger calls Kant's philosophy a "self-limitation of reason" that is responsible for totalitarianism and ecological disaster. How easy it is to revise history and claim credit for it, considering that Kant's philosophy was developed in opposition to the long-held Catholic position.
Regardless of where the second and third formulations actually originated (Kant's work shows it can be proven through secular means, the Catholic popes say Divine Law, while I think it comes from human nature, survival, and DNA--more on this later), there is something that intrinsically "feels good" about them and is relatively consistent with practically moral value systems. It is not sufficient that one ends up with good results if the intentions of those results are not. In other words, Dick Cheney, beware (here and here), since there is yet to be a consistent moral system that fits any litmus test that would condone your behavior (there is a reason Niccolò Machiavelli's work is infamous).
Let's go back to the first formulation. It is a bit weak. If one or more people decide that anthropophagy is perfectly acceptable in their vision of the universe, it is at odds with the rest of us. The second and third propositions aren't exactly helpful, either. For example, the Korowai tribe of Papua New Guinea is still believed to engage in anthropophagy, though those reports may have been exaggerated. If, for example, necro-cannibalism is still practiced by an aboriginal tribe (meaning that the sacrifice has died and consented to be eaten upon death), is that practice at odds with Natural Law or human rights? If you start to make enough exceptions, then the slippery slope that Pope John Paul II warns against becomes the natural state of the world.
Another problem with the first formulation is its converse: if something is inconsistent, does that automatically make it immoral? An inconsistency (e.g., "do as I say, not as I do") may be seen as a "Universal Hypocrisy" in light of that first formulation, and yet, no harm may be intended nor come from it. Even within one's own behavior may be wholly inconsistent. Walt Whitman says, "Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes." I think this is a beautiful sentiment, and yet, I do not think I am immoral simply because it resonates with me.
Fortunately, philosophy does not have to end with Immanuel Kant, or even the likes of Catholic Popes whose agenda represents a moral regression.
Boldly, I am going to attempt to reframe the first formulation in an entirely different way. I plan to deal with both of its flaws individually. The first I will deal with in an "incremental" approach towards a humanist paradise (in this world, not the next one), while for the second I will examine the difference between equality and what I term equitability (the real word is actually equitableness).
No comments:
Post a Comment