My research paper will explore the metaphysical foundations of ethics. To do this, I will investigate the theories of two philosophers, examining their ideas in a metaphysical context and attempting to show how their ideas can work together. These two philosophers will be Immanuel Kant and Martin Buber. All of us have read at least some Kant for this class, but my paper will explore one of Kant’s other works (which many of you might have read also), the Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals. The Foundations was published in 1785, just four years after the Critique of Pure Reason. The subsequent Metaphysics of Morals, for which the Foundations was supposed to lay the groundwork, was not published until 1797 and is viewed as somewhat less significant than the Foundations and the Critique of Practical Reason which followed shortly after it.
In the Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant argues that ethics must be set on a priori ideals. He begins his discussion of a “common sense” morality and determines the need for pure, a priori ideas upon which to basis his ethic. The goal of Kant’s system is that every rational being, because of their rationality, should be able to deduce the same moral laws from their own reason. If one can determine a pure basis for morality, then one can see such laws created on this purity as being necessary and universal. After all of his work examining how our minds work with a priori level in the first Critique, Kant uses the Foundations to show a practical application of these theories. He creates (or just discovers? depending on your outlook on a priori ideas) the categorical imperative that he believes every rational being should be able to follow in order to deduce the morality of an action. The categorical imperative, which is based on an idea of universal morality, says one should “act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”
The parts of Kant’s theory that I want to examine most heavily are those concerning his definition of personhood and how the application of the categorical imperative leads to the development of the “kingdom of ends” and his treatment of the “other” apart from ourselves. Kant defines personhood by rationality. The being that has a rational capacity and can exercise said capacity to act according to the categorical imperative qualifies as a person. Persons are capable of determining laws for themselves because they act according to the universal and thus also act as law giving citizens of their community.
This idea ties into Kant’s kingdom of ends because a kingdom of ends is a community of persons. One spin-off of the categorical imperative relates to persons in particular; Kant says a person, because of the intrinsic worth (dignity) granted to them by the use of their rational capacity, is never to be treated merely as a means; persons are to be treated always as ends in themselves. In the kingdom of ends, every person is treated according to their dignity and rationality. Every member of the community provides laws for the community by use of their rational capacity and also acts in accordance with universal laws because of their duty. On a metaphysical level, I want to explore how these ideas relate to the question of being and the self as Kant defines them for the basis of his ethical system.
Martin Buber published I and Thou in 1923, over 130 years after Kant’s Foundations. I and Thou is not typically seen as a metaphysical text nor really an ethical one, but I believe a detailed look at the basics of Buber’s work could be taken from a metaphysical approach. Despite his Jewish background, Buber took on the secular study of philosophy. His work, I and Thou, however, shows some influence of his upbringing. The goal of his work was to show the two different forms of relation which he deems “I-It” and “I-Thou” (which is now translated as “I-You”).
In the first part of I and Thou, Buber states that humanity lives in a world of “Its.” Most things we enter into relation with are only objects to us. The use of verbs has encouraged this relationship: we say “I have something,” or “I know something.” The verb requires an object to help define the “I.” One important thing to note about Buber’s “I” is that he believes the I only comes into existence when put in relation to either the It or the You (Thou). Without the other, there is no object with which to compare or define the I and thus the I as we claim it does not exist.
To be in relation with the It means one is experiencing the It. One cannot “experience” the You, Buber says, for relation with the You takes a different form. To experience something, one must focus on it as an object, see it as its qualities and features. One only gives part of one’s being to this relationship, and the object, as a mere passive faculty, is not affected by the observer.
On the opposite end, a relationship with the You requires one’s whole being. This is an active relationship in which both the I and the You are affected by the relationship. The I-You relationship takes a seeing the being as a whole, exactly as it is, without regards to its qualities and features because once one focuses on these parts, the You becomes the It once more.
Buber notes that most I-You relationships are fleeting; they are impossible to sustain forever because of our human nature. It is part of our misfortune as humans that we must always revert to an I-It relationship. One kind of I-You relationship Buber says does last for eternity is that with the Eternal Thou (God). These beliefs are where I pick up on a Jewish influence, but they are outside of the metaphysical scope I intend to examine in Buber.
With Buber, I will also be looking at the question of being and the self because his philosophy shows different forms of being (as a relationship) and how the self can be dependent on the other. In combining Buber and Kant, I want to consider how Buber’s definitions could fit into Kant’s ethical theories. I believe considering the I-You relation will be helpful in understanding personhood and the kingdom of ends in Kant so as to gain a better grasp on the metaphysical basis of Kant’s ethic.
No comments:
Post a Comment