confusing Kant

There is a ‘Golden rule’ regarding morality which goes something like this: ‘do unto others as you would do unto yourself’. While you may have heard this as a child it is prominent in other cultures and religions. However it is not a sound proposition. What if you were on an island full of masochists or sadists? It wouldn’t work so well then would it? Or couldn’t a prisoner use this on a judge to avoid punishment?

While Kant agreed with the general universal principle which the Golden Rule extolled, he felt that a modification was definitely needed to make up for its shortcomings. He uses this very obscure phrase to suggest what he means:

I ought never to act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law. (Kant, 1785, in set book, p. 510) 

 

But what the hell does this mean? Here is my take….You shouldn’t act on a statement of intent (maxim) if you cannot see the general population rationally choosing (willing) to do the same. Or, in other words, is the maxim univeralisable.

What this does NOT mean is that personal prudential reasoning should be a consideration for morality. In fact personal inclination is irrelevant for morality. Kant prefers that people make the rational choice based on the universal principle rather than the choices based on personal inclination.

There is two aspects of whether we can will that society choose a maxim. (that society will choose rationally)

The first is if the maxim contradicts itself and becomes irrational it cannot be willed. Take for instance the maxim ‘we should make promises that we don’t intend to keep’. Suppose we can imagine a world in which everyone followed this maxim. In this case there would be no truth or trust in which anyone could rely on. The promise would not exist so the maxim is irrational. How can you will a fake promise if a promise does not exist.

Another example is the maxim or the fair weather friend: ‘ we should only befriend people for short term gain’. Well if everyone does this no one would really be a friend (as we know it). Thus a ‘friend’ would not exist. Both this examples are the same as the maxim 2+2=5. Well this is irrational and we cannot expect people to follow this maxim. Ie we cannot conceive of this world

The second aspect is Kant’s argument if that the will (remember meaning ‘rational choice’) does not ‘conflict with itself’. (p105). Take for instance the ‘miser who wants what is best for himself and cares not to lend his money to other’. Well if everyone followed this maxim the individual would not get ahead as he could not rely on anyone, everyone would be on the take. Kant suggests that the miser’s maxim is not ‘reasonable’ for everyone to adopt. This reasonableness should supersede personal inclination.  

But whoa whoa hang on Nelly! Isn’t this second aspect doing exactly what Kant suggested we shouldn’t do: ‘use prudential reasoning as a consideration for morality’? Well, no he isn’t! There is a subtle difference.  You are taking you out off the consequences. You are not saying that you act in a way in which real life choices (of being a miser) will have real life consequences on you life, rather you are only envisaging a world of misers and how this would effect everyone.

Another problem is that you could adapt a maxim to be sneaky. Therefore insincere liars could be seen as not universalisable, but specific maxims could be: Ie. ‘if I happened to be in a bank on 1.15pm on Thursday, and I would stand to gain from promising insincerely, I will do so’. Or ‘When I am in a position of making Brendan Mcfadden richer by murdering people not called this, I will do so’. The very specifics of these maxims mean they fulfil both aspects of Kant’s universalisable test. They maxim does not lead to irrational contradictory consequences and their ends do not defeat their general principle. One counter-argument made by the author is to make the maxim’s general and specific. So rather than saying ‘When I am in a position of making Brendan Mcfadden richer by murdering people not called this, I will do so’, this should be modified as ‘people murder people for personal gain’. This falls down on Kant’s principle because in a world where everyone murders each other everyone will be murdered, including myself.

The Self and Personal Identity: David Hume.

Hume: 'The Self as a Bundle'

'A Treatise of Human Nature'

Humes paper was provoked by what he saw as certain philosophers taking for granted the idea of the enduring self. He was particulary focussed on attacking Joseph Butler. Hume believed his idea of an enduring self was a fiction.

Like Locke Hume was an empiricist. He believed sensory experience is the source of our thoughts. He termed these sensory inputs as impressions. Impressions are basic things derived from our perceptions (such as pain, pleasure, etc). When we think about these impressions we are then provided with ideas of them. Thus if we see a Rhino this is an impression. When we close our eyes we have a idea of this impression. Ideas then are weaker than impressions as they are only weaker versions (or footprints).

Because the idea of the self was described as a elemental or simple idea it must be based on a it must come from a unchanging impression, but, for Hume, this was not the case. When you look inside your mind you only see a constant flux of perceptions such as pleasure, pain, misery; but you do not see the self itself. It is this bundle of constantly changing perceptions that make the self. But there is no string, or platform, to tie these strings of perceptions together.

Therefore the enduring self, as proposed by Butler, is a myth.

Now Hume believes he knows why people are often confused when they naturally think they have an enduring self. This comes from the confusion of the terms 'sameness'.

Hume distinguishes between two types of sameness (similar to numerical and qualative). There is exact sameness and related sameness, which while they are distinct, are often confused. For example , if we see a tree today and a tree tomorrow we often think this exactly the same object, yet it would only be closely linked- the tree would have grown, insects would have made a home in it, leaves would have fallen from branches, etc.  The mind lazily tricks itself into thinking that these are two discreet objects when in fact they are merely related.

This fraudulent belief that this sameness exists is  comfounded when you view identity of self. The perceptions of the senses are in constant flux but because they arise in quick succession  appear seamless, hence there must be a enduring self through time. People invent terms for this connectedness such as the soul, spirit, or whatever but this is a false trick!! In fact there is no enduring self only related objects.

This view led Hume to conclude that death is the ultimate annililation, because the perceptions cease to persist.

An counter view is that of Kant. He thought the self was not an empirical idea, rather it was structural. A person always has the frame of reference of self. You always say 'I am.....'