> > I suspect that when people argue that Marxism is > incompatible with Kantianism they have in mind > such people as Eduard Bernstein or Nicolas Berdyaev > who started out as Marxists but who over time > drifted > away from Marxism.
So the Bolsheviks said about Bernstein, but why think they had it right? Berdayev is another story. The version of the CI that > appeals > > to me is the one that says that we are to treat > people > > as ends, and not as means only. > > I believe that is what called the Practical > Imperative. > A version of the same thing: "If then there is to be a supreme practical imperative, and as far as the the human will is concerned a categorical imperative, then it must be such that from the conception of what is necessarily an end for everyone because this end is an end in itself it constitutes an objective principle of the will and hence can serve as a practical law. The ground of such a principle is this: rational nature exists as an end in itself. In this way man necessarily thinks of his own existence, thus far it is a subjective principle of human actions, But in this way also does every other rational being think of his existence on the same rational ground that holds also for me; hence it is at the same time also an objective principle, from which, as a supreme practical ground, all laws of the will must be able to be derived. The practical imperative will therefore be the following: Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simple as means." I, Kant, Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, trans. J. Ellington (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing 1981), p. 36, Ak. 428-29. > > It is possible to say in a pragmatist manner that > this > > version of the "CI" is one we'd hold in reflective > > equilibrium, accepting its consequences, which it > > explains as a sensible principle of action. But,a > s > > with every pragmatic principle, it is up for > revision. > > And accepting it in this way does not commit us to > the > > Kantian ideas that only moral action in accord > with > > the CI is rational, thus free -- in some > > transcendental sense. > > Certainly, if one is an empiricist and a pragmatist, > perhaps > a holistic pragmatist in Morton White's sense, that > would > seem to be the most reasonable tac to take. And why wouldn't you be? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list [email protected] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
