Generally I'm well disposed towards Immanuel Kant; the genius of his work is the air-tight quality of his reasoning that leaves precious little room to maneuver if one wishes to dispute him. As with any such idealistic school of thought, however, Kant's ideas tend to become bogged down in discussion with particular imagined contingencies and scenarios, e.g., the Anne Frank objection to Kant's interpretation of the categorical imperative to say that lying is never justified. When, in class, it was suggested that surely dishonesty would be the right course of action if it meant saving a life, the rejoinder was that not only is the exact concequence of an action unknowable, but that the categorical imperative would not prevent the individual in such as case from taking other action to prevent the injustice (fighting or killing the Nazis was the example given).
On further reflection however, this response seems inadequate. The choice to lie, according to Kant, reflects the maxim "It is acceptable to lie" regardless of the concequences of that paricular untruth (such as saving Anne Frank from the Nazis), and no rational person would will that maxim to be universal. However, to say it would be acceptable to kill in order to prevent loss of life seems to me to run into the same problem, since the maxim reflected by such a choice would appear to be "It is acceptable to kill". Obviously nobody wills this to be a universal law, even as we generally agree that deadly force is acceptable in certain contexts. In effect, we hold to the maxim that "It is wrong to kill... except when it isn't." It is difficult to see how this common-sense perspective can hold up under the categorical imperative while lying is in every circumstance deemed immoral.
One possible reponse to this objection would be Kant's identificaiton of justice with the right to use coercion; hence, if it is injust that Anne Frank should be arrested and murdered merely for being Jewish, any individual has the right to use coercion to prevent this from occuring (in an extremely similar way to John Locke's conception of the state of nature). However, one wonders what this right encompasses, and whether there is implied a fundamental distinction between using physical force (which in other instances is deemed immoral) and deception to prevent an injustice. If so, violence (or other froms of direct coercion) appears to attain some sort of unique moral status.
The problem lies in the notion of which maxim a particular action reflects; if it is concieved broadly, then Kant's rationalistic notion of moral principles holds up well (it seems self-evident that no person would make dishonesty universally permitted). But to justify the use of deadly force as an alternative to the immoral lie (no matter how well intentioned) seems to require a more narrow maxim which states "it is acceptable to use force to correct or prevent an injustice." The devil is in the details.
If the lie is a form of coercion to ensure justice (like plato's noble lie or Anne Frank's) then would that create a pocket in Kant's universal maxim for a just lie. Or perhaps the case of Anne Frank is not subject to such a notion. If the Nazi's did not recognize Anne Frank as a person, then there could be no justice for Kant. And how could one will a universal maxim to lie or kill someone in the authority of the military? Would that not conflict with the will of those men, the government, and thus all of the wills of those within the government? In social contract theory, we give up the right to total control of our will, so when do we get to decide to act against the government that set out to limit that will? And can we ever act out to protect other's wills?
ReplyDeleteYou both bring out a really intriguing tension in Kant's methodology. Kant's categorical imperative (whether it be for morality or for justice) formulates an unconditional notion for subjective action, which is the reason for Kant's view that he had bridged together objective truths with subjective ones. But I think the problem we all feel when discussing Kant's moral philosophy is that having the only condition for all moral action be completely unconditional is a stifling paradox. Instead of allowing us to figure out what is right (what I would call building a notion of justice from the ground up), we must do the things that can only be willed according to universal law. Instead of exploring, we must go through a rational calculation for every action that may undergo some scrutiny. Who has time to think, when the Nazis are beating down on your door with their rifles, that if the maxim of your action cannot be willed to be a universal law that you're making a really bad boo-boo?
ReplyDeleteWell even if the maxim is to tell a "just lie" the maxim behind it would still by lying I think. Where I have a question or two is what Kant's opinion would be to the law. Ideally laws should be made with the categorical imperative in mind but I assume he would accept that laws can be unjust. So the law to kill ethnic minorities would be unjust by the categorical imperative by the 2nd formulation but lying to disobey that law also would violate the categorical imperative. What the best part for Kant is simply you could say, I'm being unjust but it is to avoid an unjust law. The critical part of Kant's philosophy is that you can't judge actions by their consequences since you can't know those for certain.
ReplyDeleteI feel like to some extent by lying you would be respecting the ends of the individual in reference to the 2nd part of the categorical imperative. Would it not be respecting their ends to lie and hide where Anne Frank is in order for her to live? Or would that be considered trying to predict the future?
ReplyDelete