View source for Talk:CC Kant

==Summary of Groundwork draft==

===Background===
The ''Groundwork'' was written 1785.  Kant meant it to be a popular work explaining his formulation of the moral law and how he believes freedom is possible.  A more academic, technical, and complete version is found in ''Critique of Practical Reason'', which was published in 1788.

The ''Groundwork'' is divided into three parts:
<br>1. Refinement of moral knowledge via regression from ordinary moral understanding.
<br>2. Using this moral knowledge to formulate the moral law (Kant will present three).
<br>3. A proof of freedom.

[[Contemporary Civilization|CC]] students are normally asked to read the first two parts.  This is because Kant disowned the ''Groundwork'' version of the proof of freedom.  Dissatisfied with it, he wrote a completely new proof of freedom in ''Critique of Practical Reason.''  Hence, modern scholars now consider the third part of the ''Groundwork'' philosophically irrelevant, and thus it is not included in the CC syllabus.

===Part 1===
People are born with basic moral truths.  So in merely presenting cases, one extracts moral knowledge.  You don't need a philosopher to tell right from wrong - everybody understands morality just as much as everybody else does.

What Kant regresses from ordinary moral understanding by providing a series of examples.  From these cases you get a more explicit understanding of the implicit knowledge which you knew all along.  In effect, he is extracting moral knowledge and hence giving the reader a more profound grasp of it.

Unsurprisingly, Kant concludes that the morality of an action lies in the intent.  Further, Kant contends that the only good motive is duty.  By "duty", he means doing what is right purely for the sake of doing what is right.  In practice, this means sticking to our basic principles over more shallow and enticing choices. 

Quick example: Suppose you hold the principle that stealing is bad.  However, at a certain point you are overcome by the desire to steal something which you cannot afford by honest means.  You are also a genius at criminal work, and the theft of the object would be a perfect crime; you would never be discovered or prosecuted for the theft.  In this case, we have two normative forces opposing each other: on the one hand, your anti-stealing principle, and on the other, your desire for that object.  Kant believes that rational human beings will recognize that the basic principle is superior to emotional impulses, and hence for most people the basic principle ought to win.  You will decide to abstain from theft, not because you're afraid of the police or because you're afraid to ruin your reputation; you abstain ''simply because your principle says so.'' This is acting out of duty: a recognition of the fact that basic morality ought to be chosen merely because it is chosen.

===Part II===
The next rational step is to attempt to formulate a moral law.  That's what Part II is about.  What Kant says can actually be interpreted in different ways, but here's one way of looking at it.

====Preliminary Notes====
Note that Kant is not launching an anti-skeptical argument.  He presumes that everyone knows that universal moral laws exist - for Kant, that's not even a question.  He doesn't argue for the fact that there are moral laws; he's arguing from it.

Note also that Kant disregards organized religion as a source of morality.  Kant believed that religious believers obey God because they desire reward and fear punishment.  But basing action on reward and punishment opposes precisely Kant's conclusion in Part I.  Insofar as a system of morality is a matter of reward and punishment, it stops being morality.

====The Categorical Imperative====
Now, Kant argues that morality makes absolutely no sense unless the laws are binding for everyone (meaning all ''rational beings'' - not just humans).  He has an egalitarian view of morality: whatever the moral rights and duties are, they apply to everyone.  Hence, finding the moral law oughtn't be too difficult: we simply need to answer the question, ''For action "A" in circumstances "C" for purpose "P", ought everybody do A in C for P?''  

In other words, to test a certain principle, we simply need to ask, ''Would it be right for ''everyone'' to ''always'' do this action in ''any'' situation?''  If you are able to answer "yes", than it is the morally correct thing to do.

A formulation of the moral law (known famously as the "Categorical Imperative"): '''Act only on that principle that you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.'''

Logically speaking, to test a principle, you negate it.  If the negation of the principle ends in a contradiction, the principle is correct.

====Examples====
{| style="background:#f9f9f9;" border="1"
|- style="background:#DDDDDD;"
|style="width:40%"| '''Principle'''
|style="width:20%"| '''Categorical?'''
|style="width:40%"| '''Comments'''
|-
| ''Tithing 10% of your income is good''
| No
| This principle is not universal because you cannot will it for everyone in all situations; what about people who don't have enough money to tithe?

|-
|''Malicious lying is bad''
|Yes
|In an ideal society, it would not be tolerable for even one person to lie.  It stands to reason that this principle is universifiable.
|-
|''I will neither hurt nor help the needy''
|No
|If you think this is moral, you will that the needy are neither hurt nor helped.  But what if ''you'' are one of the needy?  In such a situation, you would will for someone to help you - a direct contradiction of the principle. So this principle ends in a contradiction, and hence cannot be universal.
|}