Kantian Inhumanity
Use of appearances
Music can teach us how to play but not when or what we ought to play. Reason alone, by virtue of its self-analysis, can tell us the value of itself and of all the other faculties. Hence it determines the proper use of the other faculties, and it makes value judgments.
“use of appearances” is “the way we receive appearances, test their validity, and relate to them our desires and impulses.”
Immediate knowledge of Appearance
An appearance expresses accurately the underlying object which it reveals, in such a way that the appearance would not be possible if that object did not exist.
Mediate knowledge
Knowledge based on logical (inferential) consequence with appearances as subject matter.
Stoic freedom
Freedom is the restriction of one’s opinions and hence one’s wishes to those things which no one can prevent from happening as he desires.
Free Won’t?
Faculty of Judgment of Desires or Stoic “use of appearances”
In accordance with concepts (irrespective of objects), to “do or refrain from doing as one pleases.” That is, desire what one finds to be “good” or “evil.” We necessarily avoid what we subjectively consider “evil.”
Wish
[...] If not joined by consciousness of the ability to bring about a desire’s object by one’s own action
When unaware of the ways in which to bring an object about by one’s own action (possibly due to physical limitation, etc).
Will
“Faculty of desire whose inner determining ground, hence even what pleases it, lies within the subject’s reason. The will itself has no determining ground (no choice); insofar as it can determine choice, it is instead practical reason (pragmatism, wisdom insofar as achieving a certain end based on pure reason’s resultants) itself.” Not only choice but wish can enter into the will. e.g. My will allows me to choose what I choose and choose what I wish to choose from, despite my unconsciousness of the way in which I can bring about what I wish.
Pure will
Kant refers to the will as “pure” in Metaphysics of Morals; however, the term “pure will” is undefined. He states that Human choice is not “pure” because it is “affected but not determined.” Effectively, he has said that the power of Human choice sits somewhere between Free choice and Animal choice, yet it is determined to carry out unpure (Truly free?) choice by its pure will (undefined). This is vague and, without exlicit definition, meaningless.
Choice
Consciousness of the ability to bring about a desire’s object by one’s own action (I understand that and how, to some extent, I am physically/mentally capable…etc.)
Free Choice
Choice determined by pure reason (theoretical reason).
Animal choice
Determine only by inclination, sensible impulse, stimulus, etc.
Human choice
Choice affected but not determined by animal choice; therefore, it is not pure (free choice) but can still be determined to actions by “pure will.”
Good Will
Expected consequences are morally neutral. How can you possibly be held accountable for all of the consequences? (But to what extent can you not be held accountable?) Rational will is restrained to duty; “good will” is a rational will with respect to adhering to a moral duty. (See: Im/perfect duty)
Duty
Duty is the necessity to act out of reverence for that law set by a categorical imperative. An act can have moral content iff it is carried out solely with regard to a sense of, or in the name of fulfilling, moral duty. (See: Im/perfect duty)
Perfect Duty
Moral duty. We must not act by maxims that result in logical contradictions.
Imperfect Duty
Moral duty. We must act by maxims that we would desire to be universalized.
Imperative Statements
Any proposition which declares an action to be necessary, given the premises to that proposition.
Hypothetical Imperatives
These imperatives are conditional and applicable on a circumstantial basis. Used to achieve ends (satisfy hunger, etc), but are conditionally means themselves (to achieve other ends; e.g. satisfy hunger to sustain oneself).
First Categorical Imperative
Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become universal law.
Second Categorical Imperative
Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means.
Third Categorical Imperative
Therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends.
Comments
1 Categorical universalization leads to non-rational choice in that, theoretically, choices within related social-contexts are pre-determined. Imagine filling out an exam that asks you if you should lie in certain situations.
Exam 1: 1. No.; 2. No.; 3. No.; … n. No., etc.
This denies rational choice to yourself and all those existing in the Kingdom of Ends because, as implied, no one would answer the exam differently. Both perfect and imperfect duty are lost.
2 You piss on person A’s lawn. A says, quite sincerely, “I will kill the person who pissed on my lawn, and that persons asks you: Do you know who pissed on my lawn?” If you do not tell him, you deny his capability of engaging in rational choice. If you do tell him, you effectively are committing suicide. Kant’s own criticisms of suicide would hold.