|
I tried to be careful in how I worded Kant's relevance to the topic in order to avoid the response that his writings, along with those from other philosophers, might not really answer the question. Yes, we can conclude for ourselves whether we want to subscribe to such explanations of the basis of ethics/morality or not, but my overall point was to link this discussion of ethics, morality, and categorical imperatives to the person who made it the centerpiece of how he thought the universe operated.
Perhaps he was wrong, but then we can just toss the idea of moral imperatives out along with such a conclusion; so without grappling with his notions about the whole thing we just start spinning our wheels if we want to try and figure out the validity of such a thing as taxes as a moral imperative.
Because without that grounding, we do what is being done in this thread, and that is something that would arguably be a wrong thing to do, or as Kant might see it, not morally good. I mean the discussion is already framed for us that there is an assumed universal morality, that it can be reasoned towards, and that it can not depend on specific facts around us. We also can't judge an act by how much it might give back to us, personally or as a means to an end.
Or we just deny his whole discussion of categorical imperative and move from there, preferably onto a different discussion of what ethics are based upon. But to deny his contribution and then not really hinge whatever the discussion might then become on a different belief about how the universe works is not really doing anyone any favors when it comes to understanding what someone meant when they used a Kantian phrase.
I mean, if you take an ethics of law, or ethics of medicine, or any ethics of... course, then it will be either assumed or stated that an intro ethics/philosophy course is a prerequisite as a starting point for discussion because science is building blocks. We don't restart the conversation from ground zero as if no one has spent considerable amounts of time thinking and writing about such things to the extent that they have become part of the canon and need to at least be acknowledged.
Even if one disagrees with someone like this, it's important and relevant enough that any informed discussion would at least say, this is what has been said in the past, and this is why I believe it to not be true. At the very least, it would help people from talking past one another.
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann
"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman
|