Thousands of scholars have spent millions of hours arguing about the meaning (single and combined) and consequences of the central terms which Kant used to define his philosophy, and "duty" is one. It's not uncomplicated, in many cases, for us to grok his late 18th. Century Königsberg/Prussia world from our 21st. Century, globalised, complex, multi-centred (fragmented?) viewpoint. A few comments:
One of Kant's basic axioms is that the human person is a rational being, he/she is defined according to this characteristic. Despite his radical break with previous philosophical paradigms, Kant is still deeply influenced by their basic concepts. As such, there follows immediately a second axiom, to wit, that the “purpose” of this rational being is to express, to realise his/her rationality. Following this path is the way to “happiness.” Compliance with one's true nature brings happiness in a way that wealth, for example, being only a means to something else, cannot. It is, essentially, setting the will on the expression of one’s rational nature (even if we, as humans, can only experience and discourse over it – mostly - within our phenomenological horizons [I don't want to get into a discussion on Kant's approach to the transcendental and God here]). In this context, we need a tool to help us discern between will and desire. This is where duty (germ. Pflicht) comes in. Duty expresses the correlation of the decisions and actions we take with that which reason tells us is the right way to judge or act. Sometimes desire may also lead in this direction, sometimes it may lead in another. Duty, in the sense in which I have defined it, is a reliable guide. In this context, I believe that Kant’s choice of concept is partially, at least, socio-culturally defined. Kant’s background was that of sincerely professed simple Protestant pietism, lived out in a Prussian society which, following the lead of Frederick the Great, had as one of its positive ideals that of the dedicated, dutiful, incorruptible public servant. So the image of “duty” was familiar and comfortable to him. Had his biography had a French background, he might have taken the meme “right” instead and still reached the same ultimate position. Because that’s where Kant really wants to get to, and the concepts above are only tools to help him to get there. Working with the memes of “reason”, “happiness” and “duty” he can formulate the categorical imperative as the basis for morality. "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."* Or, in this context, perhaps the third formulation of the same shows most clearly the central position he wants to present "Therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends."* (*The quotations are from the “Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals”) Francis On 2 Sep., 01:23, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > Kant admits that happiness is something very difficult to define. He > states: "The concept of happiness is such an indeterminate concept > that, although every human being wishes to attain this, he could still > never say determinately and consistently with himself what he really > wishes and wills." > > However in the Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, Kant suggests > that attaining happiness is not just a want but a duty. He states: "To > assure one's own happiness is a duty (at least indirectly); for the > discontent with one's state, in a press of cares and amidst > unsatisfied wants, might easily become a great temptation to the > transgression of duty." > > I'm thinking that not recognizing this duty leaves one vulnerable to > the dissatisfying results of false pursuits of happiness. Like Kant's > example of a wealthy person who thinks there is happiness in wealth > but then realizes it has no real value due to the anxiety in attaining > and keeping it. > > Kant indicates that all men regardless have an innate sense to find > happiness, referred to as inclination. The dilemma being that much of > the time one's happiness results in the unhappiness of someone else > therefore concluding that everyone could not possibly be happy at the > same time. Even in the Eudemonist sense there are no guarantees or > there is a great reliability on the individual's ability to achieve > happiness. > > I see a direct conflict between desires, happiness and morality > because much of the pursuit of happiness creates an abandonment of > morality and desire fails to promote happiness, perhaps temporarily or > at least at the achievement level. > > Aside from morality issues the end road for me is the question of the > duty to assure happiness. Is there individual duty to assure > happiness and if there is would each individual happiness lead to the > ultimate happiness of society. I've always said, "If you want to be > happy make the people around you happy". Make the world around you > happy and you will be living in a happy world. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
