so maybe Kant isn't a cunt after all
so last night, i sat down to read William Blake so that i could write an essay on him for fysem. instead, i poured out this 3-page thing on how one of Kant's ideas works in my life right now, siting examples in the text (2 quotes) and examples from my own life.
This is my view on what we’ve discussed of Kant so far:
Although my friends and I often jokingly refer to Immanuel Kant as “Kant the Cunt,” that might not be so valid. Yes, his style of writing may be dense and his words hard to follow sometimes, he actually makes some sense. He speaks of creating a sense of morality separate from experience set within a rigid structure. It’s this whole sense of duty versus inclination and pleasure (or doing versus feeling).
Kant talks of how people are greatly concerned with self-preservation. He states, “if an unfortunate man, strong in soul and more indignant at his fate than despondent or dejected, wishes for death and yet preserves his life without loving it - not from inclination or fear, but from duty - then his maxim indeed has a moral content” (p. 10, ln. 402-405). If one preserves their life because you have to live, then that is moral. However, if one preserves their life out of fear, that is not moral. This leads to how Kant shows suicide as an immoral action. Committing suicide is out of having no desire to live life; one has a natural drive to live, therefore, going against the norm and becoming an immoral action. (However, in the case of a psychopath or sociopath, committing suicide would be considered a “normal” inclination, then making it a moral action in this context. The idea of evaluating morality depending on context will be addressed in a moment.) Practically anything that gives pleasure is selfish - and therefore immoral. Kant states this in saying on page eleven, “the inclination for honor, which if fortunately directed to what is in fact beneficial and accords with duty and is thus honorable, deserves praise and encouragement, but not esteem; for its maxim lacks the moral content of an action done not from inclination but from duty.” To take oneself away from pleasure creates a sense of morality, or duty.
Duty, as Kant defines it, is action taken in respect for the law. The idea of morality, as Kant states it, is in an abstract form. For it to work as an abstract there has to be rigid structure in duty - in other words, the law. Once duty is acting within this set system (the law), actions are then done based on the set system, rather than on the outcome. The outcome, according to Kant, does effect the moral content of the action, rather, morality is contextualized within the laws of the society.
Now, through events of my own personal life, I am starting to agree with Kant when he says that one should not do something for a beneficial outcome or to please another person, but should do them only if they are “moral” or not by the system of law set up in the specific society. The reason I am agreeing with this is because I have always been known for having a cheery disposition and being willing to go out of my way for anyone to be a good - if not great - friend to others, often accepting no more than a thank you and a hug in exchange. I had always been doing such things because of the beneficial outcome for another person. There is nothing in the law of any of the societies that I belong to (the USA, Bard College, being a college freshman, etc.) in which it is stated that one should be nice to another when they are down. However, this practice is done because it is “the right thing to do,” something Kant deems immoral. I no longer want to do things like that because they are the right thing to do or because they help others, it makes no sense in the sense of morality (at least in Kant’s terms). But this is where I hit a contradiction: the reason in which I would stop being this “24/7 friend” would be because I feel there is no reason for me to pay attention to the outcomes because they are beneficial to others, not to me. That, however, definitely falls within the realm of self-preservation.
Though I think I might have found a way out of that loop. If, instead of being the 24/7 friend I substitute it with spending time in my room by myself, doing homework and going to class because the law of the system I am in (here, Bard College), I am being moral in my actions. So, ha! Kant’s logic is not so flawed for real-life application in modern times (not that I know of it being indicated as not being able to work here and now). Will I live by Kant’s philosophy? Maybe I will try it for a week or so. One can never know what will work without trying it first. For all I know, living a “moral life” could change everything for me.
my teacher's going to thing i'm on crack. and this being Bard, they might try and do something about the fact that she's going to think i'm on crack. oh well, let's just hope they don't kick me out of school. whatever, i have witnesses who can vouch that i wasn't on anything. is it bad that i'm worrying about this?
This is my view on what we’ve discussed of Kant so far:
Although my friends and I often jokingly refer to Immanuel Kant as “Kant the Cunt,” that might not be so valid. Yes, his style of writing may be dense and his words hard to follow sometimes, he actually makes some sense. He speaks of creating a sense of morality separate from experience set within a rigid structure. It’s this whole sense of duty versus inclination and pleasure (or doing versus feeling).
Kant talks of how people are greatly concerned with self-preservation. He states, “if an unfortunate man, strong in soul and more indignant at his fate than despondent or dejected, wishes for death and yet preserves his life without loving it - not from inclination or fear, but from duty - then his maxim indeed has a moral content” (p. 10, ln. 402-405). If one preserves their life because you have to live, then that is moral. However, if one preserves their life out of fear, that is not moral. This leads to how Kant shows suicide as an immoral action. Committing suicide is out of having no desire to live life; one has a natural drive to live, therefore, going against the norm and becoming an immoral action. (However, in the case of a psychopath or sociopath, committing suicide would be considered a “normal” inclination, then making it a moral action in this context. The idea of evaluating morality depending on context will be addressed in a moment.) Practically anything that gives pleasure is selfish - and therefore immoral. Kant states this in saying on page eleven, “the inclination for honor, which if fortunately directed to what is in fact beneficial and accords with duty and is thus honorable, deserves praise and encouragement, but not esteem; for its maxim lacks the moral content of an action done not from inclination but from duty.” To take oneself away from pleasure creates a sense of morality, or duty.
Duty, as Kant defines it, is action taken in respect for the law. The idea of morality, as Kant states it, is in an abstract form. For it to work as an abstract there has to be rigid structure in duty - in other words, the law. Once duty is acting within this set system (the law), actions are then done based on the set system, rather than on the outcome. The outcome, according to Kant, does effect the moral content of the action, rather, morality is contextualized within the laws of the society.
Now, through events of my own personal life, I am starting to agree with Kant when he says that one should not do something for a beneficial outcome or to please another person, but should do them only if they are “moral” or not by the system of law set up in the specific society. The reason I am agreeing with this is because I have always been known for having a cheery disposition and being willing to go out of my way for anyone to be a good - if not great - friend to others, often accepting no more than a thank you and a hug in exchange. I had always been doing such things because of the beneficial outcome for another person. There is nothing in the law of any of the societies that I belong to (the USA, Bard College, being a college freshman, etc.) in which it is stated that one should be nice to another when they are down. However, this practice is done because it is “the right thing to do,” something Kant deems immoral. I no longer want to do things like that because they are the right thing to do or because they help others, it makes no sense in the sense of morality (at least in Kant’s terms). But this is where I hit a contradiction: the reason in which I would stop being this “24/7 friend” would be because I feel there is no reason for me to pay attention to the outcomes because they are beneficial to others, not to me. That, however, definitely falls within the realm of self-preservation.
Though I think I might have found a way out of that loop. If, instead of being the 24/7 friend I substitute it with spending time in my room by myself, doing homework and going to class because the law of the system I am in (here, Bard College), I am being moral in my actions. So, ha! Kant’s logic is not so flawed for real-life application in modern times (not that I know of it being indicated as not being able to work here and now). Will I live by Kant’s philosophy? Maybe I will try it for a week or so. One can never know what will work without trying it first. For all I know, living a “moral life” could change everything for me.
my teacher's going to thing i'm on crack. and this being Bard, they might try and do something about the fact that she's going to think i'm on crack. oh well, let's just hope they don't kick me out of school. whatever, i have witnesses who can vouch that i wasn't on anything. is it bad that i'm worrying about this?