In class, lots of questions and situations were created to
test Kant’s Categorical Imperative. Focus at one point aimed at measuring what
exactly Kant meant by “humanity.” Discussion ended with humanity defined as a
fellow free-will, a rational being. Thus, we cannot treat a rational being as merely a means. When Kant was alive,
slavery was still overwhelmingly popular. I am not sure if Kant was
anti-slavery or not (hopefully he was), but the addition of “merely” to his
second clause becomes a point of controversy because of the word’s slippery
properties. It opens up a huge amount of space to fill in with perfectly
rational arguments that can push the boundaries of merely to its irrational limits. Slavery was without question using
fellow rational beings as a means, but it was a common belief that they were
not merely a means. It was us white
folk that brought the savages out of the land of ignorance and into the Western
environment of enlightenment. By bringing the Africans in to work for us we
were bettering their lives. This justification sounds absurd now, but it is not
so far removed from our society today. America has ruled the global economy for
decades. America trades and buys and supports and funds and in return it has
been given access to the natural resources of other countries. Diamonds in
Africa, oil in the Middle East, trees from the rainforest, etc. Most of these
resources are irreplaceable. India just last year was found to be having power
shortages because corrupts officials had sold away a large portion of their
coal stocks. They did not sell to America, but the point is these international
trade systems have allowed some countries to exploit others. The questions are:
1) whether or not countries can be considered as rational beings; 2) whether
the exploitation can be counted as merely
or fully treating the country as a means. I do believe a country could be
considered human since it represents many of them and all decision made by a
country come from rational beings. The second question is trickier and only
made so by the addition of the merely.
I will not answer the question, but if I were to say no, my reasoning would
probably sound very similar to the reasoning used by the owners of slaves: they
gain from us too. This may be true, but is what they gain even close in
comparison to what they lose? An argument exists for both sides, but it will
always be easier to prove our actions exist outside the finite boundaries of merely.
Aron, you raise some interesting questions about international relations and language. Logically, the term merely only necessitates that at least some part, no matter how small, of the exchange between two subjects must recognize the end-ness of the subject acting as a means. Clearly, he doesn't say much more than that. In the language, perhaps, if you pressed him on this issue, Kant would say that the mean-ness side of the proportion aught to always be lower than the end-ness side. That being said, he did write a bit on Monogenesis that argues for a certain racial hierarchy, which he claims came from a natural progression. We now know that this isn't even close to being the case. The ambiguity in his wording may have something to do with this. Clearly though, seeing other countries as ends rather than means would truly change the way in which the United States operates as a country.
ReplyDeleteComparing countries to individuals is an dangerous but interesting idea here. Countries almost always work very selfishly for preservation and advancement and rarely look beyond that. Humanity may also act this often but I think individuals have more ties to other individuals, especially family, than countries have with each other. It's easy to lose the humanity in a nation if you think if it as only an amorphous thing rather than a collection of individuals. Treating other countries as people, and means, would probably benefit society the most however that is far away from how international relations works today
ReplyDeleteMatt Hein has a very good point in his comment but if you look at america's recent foreign policy we tend to go out of our way to assist countries in need like about a week ago we almost bombed Syria because they were committing atrocities against their people. This does not benefit america in any way other than improving americas image. So therefore i don't fully agree with Matt Hein's comment.
ReplyDeleteI think much of the problem here comes from vaguely defined terms. For example in the case of 'merely,' arguing for or against its validity is really just arguing over the precise definition of merely. In the end, whatever conclusion anyone comes up with is always accompanied by an assumption about the nature of 'merely,' and so there can be no definitive answer because different people have different opinions. To the above comment, I find that you disprove your own argument. You say that America does not gain benefit in any other way than improving their image. However, how important America's image is is purely subjective, so you could say the same thing in an argument for why America sucks. Again, it all comes down to whether it's merely improving americas image or really so much improving americas image.
ReplyDelete