This was originally posted on Clotted Cognition on 10/22/07:
"So act as to treat humanity, whether in thine own person or in that of any other, in every case as an end withal, never as a means only." Immanuel Kant, Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals
As I was preparing for my second class today and rereading Kant (my homey), it struck me that we place more value on objects, the things that can never be ends in themselves, than we do on human beings, now. As I mentioned in my post about the value of life versus the value of money, objects can only have the value we assign to them in our rational minds; life, however, has intrinsic value, whether we choose to acknowledge it or not.
Why is that true? Kant would have us believe that it has everything to do with reason, so life really only refers to human life. Is it true that because we can reason and we have a priori knowledge that we have intrinsic value without anything a posteriori involved? (objects value and perhaps existence being wholly a posteriori) Why does reason make us an end in ourselves?
We talk about people being "reasonable" and thinking with logic all the time. I tend to think that if a person is blessed with the capacity to reason and they don't use that capacity then they are acting in a way that does not just themselves, but humanity a grave disservice. If we believe in the categorical imperative (Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law), then we must accept that what we do is what we would have all people do. Is it true that we should allow our "kingdom of ends" to be populated with people who refuse to reason? This cannot be so.
If we have a duty to mankind (as we must if the categorical imperative is to be believed) and our duty is bound to our will, as Kant would have us believe, then we must will that we reason and that we employ our natural gift of logic in every way. We are dual beings with an emotional side to our nature, to be sure, but if we have this a priori knowledge, or foundation, then acting out of reason is our greatest duty. We might react to things emotionally, but it should only be our most shallow response and not our permanent response.
This is where I am puzzled: why is it we substitute the shallowness of emotion for reason as our final decision? We see it over and over, in politics, in friendship, in family, in commerce, and I am wondering why people think that will serve them in any beneficial way. Sure, there are some situations that call for emotion and lots of it; but to allow that to rule our lives to an extent that we betray reason? Why would we do such a thing?
I think people are too used to taking the easy way out. "If it feels good, do it." That's far easier than subjecting all that you do to a universal principle of morality. But when we do this we are denying all that we are as human beings. And when we value an object (e.g. money) over life we betray the gift of reason. An object cannot act and cannot, therefore, have responsibility in the human community. Therefore, its value can only be the value we place on it. What a shallow life it must be to do these things.
And now I must truly leave for class! Don't you wish you could come? :P
No comments:
Post a Comment