Kant took morality from the province of God (religion) and put it under the province of man (reason). That was a mistake of enormous consequences.
Christian-Catholic morality is ultimately based on faith whereas Kantian morality is based on reason. Kant posits a perfectly rational principle as the standard of morality, the so called categorical imperative: "I am never to act otherwise than so that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law" (1). This is not too different from a basic principle of Christian morality, the Golden Rule: "In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the Law and the Prophets" (2).
So far the Christian system of morality based on faith seems equivalent to the Kantian system of morality based on reason. The difference shows up when we ask: why?
Let us start with the Golden Rule: why should I follow the Golden Rule?. The answer is: "Because it is the word of God" and the discussion comes to an end because having accepted God I cannot doubt His word. Let us now ask the same question with regard to Kant's categorical imperative: why should I follow the categorical imperative? Because it is the word of Kant? It is because Kant knows that people would not accept a system of morality based on his word alone that he is led to search for a reason why we should follow the categorical imperative.
And he finds one (3). He argues that men should act morally and that, for him, means acting out of a sense of duty. He then goes on to an extensive, elaborated (often convoluted) explanation why this must be so. After such travails the end result is surprisingly clear: Kant did not even succeed at persuading himself:
"We have also, which is of great importance, exhibited clearly and definitely for every practical application the content of the categorical imperative, which must contain the principle of all duty, if there is such a thing at all" (4) (bold mine)
Kant is now at a conundrum: either he accepts the "principle of all duty" as an act of faith for his system of morals to make sense, in which case it becomes based on faith, not on reason; or he must explain why duty is the hallmark of morality, something he had already attempted without success.
As long as we stay in the province of reason the "why question" remains an open door through which any stranger can get in. That is what Ayn Rand, among others, has done. Rand criticized severely the Kantian notion that duty is the distinguishing feature of moral behaviour and she puts self-interest where Kant had put duty. Soon she would come up with a different system of morality which she called objectivist ethics.
It should be clear that in his effort to build a rational morality, Kant not only failed at that, but he opened the door for multiple, rational systems of morality, each one of them based on a different assumption (duty, self-interest, equality, piety, etc.) leading to extreme moral relativism and ultimately to the destruction of morality all together.
The lesson from Kant's efforts seems clear to me. We cannot base a system of morals on reason. We must base it on faith. If we try to base morality on reason we do not come up with one system of morals. We come up with many, that is, we destroy morality.
(1) Kant, "Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals", in Great Books of the Western World, op. cit., vol. 42, p. 260)
(2) Matthew: 7:12
(3) This little sentence is key in my argument. For the distinguishing feature of human reason is its ability to find reasons and this is true for Kant as well as for anybody else.
Christian-Catholic morality is ultimately based on faith whereas Kantian morality is based on reason. Kant posits a perfectly rational principle as the standard of morality, the so called categorical imperative: "I am never to act otherwise than so that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law" (1). This is not too different from a basic principle of Christian morality, the Golden Rule: "In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the Law and the Prophets" (2).
So far the Christian system of morality based on faith seems equivalent to the Kantian system of morality based on reason. The difference shows up when we ask: why?
Let us start with the Golden Rule: why should I follow the Golden Rule?. The answer is: "Because it is the word of God" and the discussion comes to an end because having accepted God I cannot doubt His word. Let us now ask the same question with regard to Kant's categorical imperative: why should I follow the categorical imperative? Because it is the word of Kant? It is because Kant knows that people would not accept a system of morality based on his word alone that he is led to search for a reason why we should follow the categorical imperative.
And he finds one (3). He argues that men should act morally and that, for him, means acting out of a sense of duty. He then goes on to an extensive, elaborated (often convoluted) explanation why this must be so. After such travails the end result is surprisingly clear: Kant did not even succeed at persuading himself:
"We have also, which is of great importance, exhibited clearly and definitely for every practical application the content of the categorical imperative, which must contain the principle of all duty, if there is such a thing at all" (4) (bold mine)
Kant is now at a conundrum: either he accepts the "principle of all duty" as an act of faith for his system of morals to make sense, in which case it becomes based on faith, not on reason; or he must explain why duty is the hallmark of morality, something he had already attempted without success.
As long as we stay in the province of reason the "why question" remains an open door through which any stranger can get in. That is what Ayn Rand, among others, has done. Rand criticized severely the Kantian notion that duty is the distinguishing feature of moral behaviour and she puts self-interest where Kant had put duty. Soon she would come up with a different system of morality which she called objectivist ethics.
It should be clear that in his effort to build a rational morality, Kant not only failed at that, but he opened the door for multiple, rational systems of morality, each one of them based on a different assumption (duty, self-interest, equality, piety, etc.) leading to extreme moral relativism and ultimately to the destruction of morality all together.
The lesson from Kant's efforts seems clear to me. We cannot base a system of morals on reason. We must base it on faith. If we try to base morality on reason we do not come up with one system of morals. We come up with many, that is, we destroy morality.
(1) Kant, "Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals", in Great Books of the Western World, op. cit., vol. 42, p. 260)
(2) Matthew: 7:12
(3) This little sentence is key in my argument. For the distinguishing feature of human reason is its ability to find reasons and this is true for Kant as well as for anybody else.
(4) Kant, op. cit., p. 270
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário