Kant and Karmic theory
Hi,
Its been quite some time since I posted last, but life has been somewhat hectic lately. The other day, I was reading Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals. Its not an easy read, with a lot of abstract argumentation, but worth the effort.
Definitely recommended for anyone looking for a discursive essay on the origin of Ethics and Morality. Wonderful argument construction, where he takes Good Will as an unqualified good (first principle), which is an end in itself, and in which "no account is taken of its utility"....
He justifies why we should consider this axiomatic (and doesn't require to be explicity proven), and builds his theory of morality as an a priori exercise of Will. Kant contends that the single most distinguishing aspect of Morality is its universality.
He says: ..the basis of obligation (my note:Morality)...must not be sought in the nature of man, or in the circumstances in the world in which he is placed...for everyone must admit that if a law is to have moral force, it must carry with it absolute necessity, (my note:be universal).
Therefore, it follows that if the guiding principles of our actions cannot be universalized without self contradiction, then our actions are immoral. Simply put, when a person attempts to set a different standard for themselves than for the rest of humanity, then that person is being immoral. (but isn't this obvious, you say? Exactly. Kant would want you to say it, for he contends that this exercise of the Categorical Imperative is something that any user would do automatically, without any prior experience, a priori.)
-----------------
The other day, I had an interesting discussion with a friend. I was caught in an unpleasant situation where I had to pay a huge fine, rising from breaking a contract that I had unwisely entered in, when I was younger, and more innocent. So I was telling this friend, why I decided to pay the fine and fulfil my contractual obligations (instead of just running away) on ethical grounds. And moreover, I said, I didnt need this black mark in my record.
And then, my friend made this interesting point- He said, if you are justifying your actions on ethical grounds, you really dont need to justify further with the "black-mark" argument. If what you are doing is ethical, you are doing it because it is the right thing, and not because the consequence of your actions will cause future benefit (or alternatively, the consequence of inaction will cause future harm).
Kant says something similar: " ..an action done from duty derives it moral worth, not from the purpose which is to be attained by it, but from the maxim by which it is determined, and therefore does not depend on the realization of the object of the action, but merely the principle of volition by which the action has taken place, without regard to any object of desire."
or quite coincidentally in the Gita,
" Karmanyeva Adhikaraste Ma Phaleshu Kadachana,
Ma Karmaphala Heturbhurma Te Sangostva Karamani"
Directly translated as "Seek to perform your duty. But LAY NOT CLAIM to its fruits. Be you NOT the producer of the FRUITS of KARMA; Neither shall you LEAN towards INACTION."
I will leave you to draw the links between the two.
Its been quite some time since I posted last, but life has been somewhat hectic lately. The other day, I was reading Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals. Its not an easy read, with a lot of abstract argumentation, but worth the effort.
Definitely recommended for anyone looking for a discursive essay on the origin of Ethics and Morality. Wonderful argument construction, where he takes Good Will as an unqualified good (first principle), which is an end in itself, and in which "no account is taken of its utility"....
He justifies why we should consider this axiomatic (and doesn't require to be explicity proven), and builds his theory of morality as an a priori exercise of Will. Kant contends that the single most distinguishing aspect of Morality is its universality.
He says: ..the basis of obligation (my note:Morality)...must not be sought in the nature of man, or in the circumstances in the world in which he is placed...for everyone must admit that if a law is to have moral force, it must carry with it absolute necessity, (my note:be universal).
Therefore, it follows that if the guiding principles of our actions cannot be universalized without self contradiction, then our actions are immoral. Simply put, when a person attempts to set a different standard for themselves than for the rest of humanity, then that person is being immoral. (but isn't this obvious, you say? Exactly. Kant would want you to say it, for he contends that this exercise of the Categorical Imperative is something that any user would do automatically, without any prior experience, a priori.)
-----------------
The other day, I had an interesting discussion with a friend. I was caught in an unpleasant situation where I had to pay a huge fine, rising from breaking a contract that I had unwisely entered in, when I was younger, and more innocent. So I was telling this friend, why I decided to pay the fine and fulfil my contractual obligations (instead of just running away) on ethical grounds. And moreover, I said, I didnt need this black mark in my record.
And then, my friend made this interesting point- He said, if you are justifying your actions on ethical grounds, you really dont need to justify further with the "black-mark" argument. If what you are doing is ethical, you are doing it because it is the right thing, and not because the consequence of your actions will cause future benefit (or alternatively, the consequence of inaction will cause future harm).
Kant says something similar: " ..an action done from duty derives it moral worth, not from the purpose which is to be attained by it, but from the maxim by which it is determined, and therefore does not depend on the realization of the object of the action, but merely the principle of volition by which the action has taken place, without regard to any object of desire."
or quite coincidentally in the Gita,
" Karmanyeva Adhikaraste Ma Phaleshu Kadachana,
Ma Karmaphala Heturbhurma Te Sangostva Karamani"
Directly translated as "Seek to perform your duty. But LAY NOT CLAIM to its fruits. Be you NOT the producer of the FRUITS of KARMA; Neither shall you LEAN towards INACTION."
I will leave you to draw the links between the two.
posted by Venkat at 2:28 PM
1 Comments:
Very perceptive.(right)actions (Like those based on honesty and integrity) have their own intrinsic value and need no further rationalization or subscription to an external ethic. I might want to elaborate on this further at my site, www.indicstudies.us. see for instance my booklet on Dhaarmik Traditions.
It is interesting however that no western author(with very few exceptions) sees fit or cares to attribute these ideas to the Indic ancients whereas if we made a similar faux pas we would be dubbed as a chauvinistic indian or a nationalist Hindu or just plain ignorant. The ignorance of western savants of developments outside of a very small geographic area suich as Europe was /and still is abysmal.
Post a Comment
<< Home