I have been following this thread on Kant as a lurker. At this point
the discussion seems to have moved beyond Kantian epistemology and the
transcendental-critical subject. It also appears that, rather than
looking to graft Kantian moral structures onto historical materialism,
discussants are moving to a position that the principle of treatment
of persons as ends rather than means is compatible with marxism. I
would entirely agree with this. ( Isn' t the "ends" principle
incorporated in the distributive aphorism: "From each according to his
ability to each according to his need" ?) However, CB is correct to
locate any categorical principle historically, as opposed to being a
constitutive element of human consciousness a priori. This is a quite
valid and significant point, I think, because there's been an abiding
confusion over marxism and utilitarianism, both for marxists and
their critics.
By way of example: Enroute to an antiwar conference on a "Trotskyist"
bus a comrade realized she'd left her purse in a booth at a highway
roadstop about 5 miles back. A debate ensued over whether we should
turn back or not. A young comrade jumped to the front of the bus and
demanded, "What kind of a bus is this anyway? We're supposed to be a
socialist bus, so we shouldn't be talking about turning around for an
article forgotten by a single individual. That's just bourgeois
ideology comrades!" The matter was settled by the driver who went back
to get the woman's purse. It struck me then that a fallacy of
composition existed where the democratic principle of majoritarianism
was counterposed to the principle of individual human need. But isn't
majority rule a procedural norm, whereas treatment of individuals as
ends is a matter of substantive principle?
So it's more a matter of concern for the well being of each being a
necessary condition for the happiness of all. This may not be the best
example, but it's always seemed to me that Kant's "ends principle" was
subsumed by both Hegal and Marx, and mediated by Feuerbach.
RM
On 5/30/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Send Marxism-Thaxis mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Marxism-Thaxis digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Kant & "Serious Marxism" (Charles Brown)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 15:07:55 -0400
From: "Charles Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Kant & "Serious Marxism"
To: "'Forum for the discussion of theoretical issues raised by Karl
Marx and the thinkers he inspired'"
<[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
andie nachgeborenen
That said, I think there is a point to saying that
materialists ought to be somewhat skeptical of any
supposed a priori principles of practical reason. For
my money, I think Hegel's critique of the
universalizability version of the Categorical
Imperative that Charles likes is quite powerful -- H
regards universalizability as a merely negative and
empty criterion. 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.
^^^^
CB: I thought I said that was the aspect of CI that seems ok. Sort of
"nothing human is alien to me".
Yea,here it is. I said:
"That's somebody else whose writing on Kant's categorical imperative.
Is the idea of humans as ends in themselves alien to Marxism ? What is the
idealist error in that. "
Charles"
^^^^^
I think materialists
can accept this without buying into the Kantian
transcendental a priori apparatus or treating the
imperative as "categorical" in Kant's sense, as a
somehow absolute and self-validating principle of
(practical) reason.
^^^^^^
CB: Right, just make it an _a posteriori_ conclusion , not _a priori_. It is
not part of the structure of our brains, but historically derived from human
experience.
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
[email protected]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
End of Marxism-Thaxis Digest, Vol 31, Issue 18
**********************************************
_______________________________________________
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
[email protected]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
