![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
What's going on with Kant anyway?
Apr. 23rd, 2014 06:32 pmIt kinda amazes me that he could come up with both brilliant moral philosophy, such as his attempts to define a/the categorical imperative, and atrocious moral philosophy, such as his defense of revenge, or his support for white supremacy.
I am just going to point out two formulations of his categorical imperative, and how his oft-cited support for revenge/retribution contradicts this. I don't understand the third, but the first two cover the important ground:
In one formulation, he said that we should act only according to that maxim which we could, at the same time, will to be a universal law.
In another, he said that we should always treat humanity as an end in itself, never as a mere means.
Any form of revenge/retribution/returning evil for evil means treating revenge as an end in itself and the humanity of the target of the revenge as a mere means. Because it is pointless cruelty, it violates the formula of humanity. Because it is an evil for an evil, if it is consistent, then it leads to an endless cycle of evil, and it isn't good regardless of any formula; if it is inconsistent, it fails the formula of universal law.
I have a hard enough time understanding why anyone would support revenge, but I have a harder time understanding someone who actually thought about moral philosophy and contributed good ideas to moral philosophy would have supported revenge.
I am just going to point out two formulations of his categorical imperative, and how his oft-cited support for revenge/retribution contradicts this. I don't understand the third, but the first two cover the important ground:
In one formulation, he said that we should act only according to that maxim which we could, at the same time, will to be a universal law.
In another, he said that we should always treat humanity as an end in itself, never as a mere means.
Any form of revenge/retribution/returning evil for evil means treating revenge as an end in itself and the humanity of the target of the revenge as a mere means. Because it is pointless cruelty, it violates the formula of humanity. Because it is an evil for an evil, if it is consistent, then it leads to an endless cycle of evil, and it isn't good regardless of any formula; if it is inconsistent, it fails the formula of universal law.
I have a hard enough time understanding why anyone would support revenge, but I have a harder time understanding someone who actually thought about moral philosophy and contributed good ideas to moral philosophy would have supported revenge.
