Question about Kantian ethics

[Fairbanks]

Originally Posted by Aedes

A deontologist would argue that laws should be derived from ethical first principles, and Kant's categorical imperative is sort of the flag-bearer of deontology. You're describing a utilitarian conception of law, in which the law need not have a moral foundation so long as it achieves a desired societal state.

The natural behavior of the state is probably closer to utilitarian than utopic but the state would not be subject to ethics in the first place. The moral law is a different animal than laws of the state. As far as a desired social state, that fails every time it is tried: we simply cannot create a state, especially since we are not at all clear what a state actually is. The state in itself lacks moral law just as it lacks desire.

[krazy kaju]

You're treating the state as if it were some abstract being, when it clearly isn't. The state is nothing more than a monopoly over certain things like protection, national defense, courts, law, etc. The state is made up of individuals who then dictate what these monopolies do.

1. Individuals make up the state.
2. Individuals are bound to moral laws.
3. Ergo, the state is bound to moral laws.

[Fairbanks]

Originally Posted by krazy kaju

As for Fairbanks, you're essentially advocating moral fascism: primacy of the state over all others. This view is essentially wrong because the state itself is bound to any moral rules imposed on humans, because "the state" as such is not a singular entity, simply an organization consisting of human beings who are bound to the rules of morals.

The state evidently is not an intelligent being and therefore has no desire and is completely outside moral law. The state is not an organization although the govenment certainly is and the various institutions of the state have degrees of organization. I would not use such highly charged terms as fascism to describe all states since other systems are possible. The state has other institutions, such as the Press. Choosing another issue, should a citizen write a Letter to the Editor in a campaign to point out the immorality of driving while text messaging ?

[krazy kaju]

My entire point being that the state isn't a being. It's a collection of individual beings who are bound to moral law, so the state is as well.

I'm not saying that you're advocating fascism, but you are advocating moral fascism. Moral fascism is the view that the state is above all else and that only its laws can impose moral rules on humans. It's the ethical corner stone of all fascism.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Fairbanks

The natural behavior of the state is probably closer to utilitarian than utopic but the state would not be subject to ethics in the first place.

But in this thread we're not talking about the natural behavior of the state, right? We're talking about morals as conceived in Kantian ethics, which are most certainly NOT a model for law. So yes, abortion has its legal vagaries, but that's besides the point -- which is how might one make a moral judgement about abortion under a Kantian ethical scheme?

[Fairbanks]

Originally Posted by krazy kaju

You're treating the state as if it were some abstract being, when it clearly isn't. The state is nothing more than a monopoly over certain things like protection, national defense, courts, law, etc. The state is made up of individuals who then dictate what these monopolies do.

1. Individuals make up the state.
2. Individuals are bound to moral laws.
3. Ergo, the state is bound to moral laws.

No dictators allowed. No monopoly allowed. Individuals do not make up the state. Institutions make up the state and they are constrained both by their charters, written or unwritten, and individual non-understanding of the nature of the state. Institutions can be anything but intelligent and they therefore have no desire and no moral law.

[Fairbanks]

Originally Posted by krazy kaju

My entire point being that the state isn't a being. It's a collection of individual beings who are bound to moral law, so the state is as well.

I'm not saying that you're advocating fascism, but you are advocating moral fascism. Moral fascism is the view that the state is above all else and that only its laws can impose moral rules on humans. It's the ethical corner stone of all fascism.

I would agree that the state is not a being, but an existing thing. Morals cannot be legislated, so they say, and they are right even if they don't know how. The state can impose ethics on its officials. Even though the terms originally meant about the same--morals and ethics--no more than custom or tradition, ethics has come to take on a legal significance. Moral law should remain as Kant had it, that inner law that guides intelligent decision.

[Fairbanks]

Originally Posted by Aedes

But in this thread we're not talking about the natural behavior of the state, right? We're talking about morals as conceived in Kantian ethics, which are most certainly NOT a model for law. So yes, abortion has its legal vagaries, but that's besides the point -- which is how might one make a moral judgement about abortion under a Kantian ethical scheme?

Abortion would be a tough problem for ethics class. But, Kant's examples were mainly directed toward personal choice that did not involve outright murder. He might choose a different publisher for his new Critique and never explain why to the new owner.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by krazy kaju

My entire point being that the state isn't a being. It's a collection of individual beings who are bound to moral law.

What is moral law and what makes someone bound to it?

[Victor Eremita]

Originally Posted by Aedes

What is moral law and what makes someone bound to it?

Very good, how is someone bound to moral law? As Kierkegaard writes:

Kant was of the opinion that man is his own law (autonomy) - that is, he binds himself under the law which he himself gives himself. Actually, in a profounder sense, this is how lawlessness or experimentation are established. This is not being rigorously earnest any more than Sancho Panza's self-administered blows to his own bottom were vigorous. ... Now if a man is never even once willing in his lifetime to act so decisively that [a lawgiver] can get hold of him, well, then it happens, then the man is allowed to live on in self-complacent illusion and make-believe and experimentation, but this also means: utterly without grace.

For Kant, only rational beings (e.g. most human beings) are bound to the moral law, the law which one gives himself. Non-rational beings cannot be bound to the moral law, as they have not bound themselves to the moral law.