Kant gives his critic about how can metaphysics as a science be possible. Through transcendental philosophy Kant suggests that science must have laws of necessity and universally that conceive ideas that are subjective and objective judgments.
Kant makes a distinction between ideas in the mind (ideas in the inner world) such as God, Soul and Freedom as opposed to ideas in the outer world such as Math and Physics or Nature. Ideas that are perceived as real, that is senses of experience that, we can be certain of, are contrasted from ideas of subjective perception. Ideas of math and physics are objective and are conceived from experience. Ideas conceived in the inner world he calls subjective and are intuitive. Subjective ideas are not known from experience as they go beyond every possible experience.
To avoid error between these two ideas and remove the illusions that can occur when a subjective judgment is confused and is perceived as objective, (there must not be contradictions of ideas) transcendental dialectic is applied. However, it is a difficult task to do because “reason by nature becomes dialectical through its ideas.” (p. 81§42) Transcendental dialectic is compare and distinguish ideas from experience by way of seeing opposing ideas. Kant states, “the only prevention against the errors into which reason falls if it misconstrues its vocation and, in transcendent fashion, refers to the object in itself that which concerns only its own subject and the guidance of that subject in every use that is immanent. (P. 80 §40) Kant furthers states that “all illusion consists in taking the subjective basis for a judgment to be objective.” P. 80 §40
Objective judgments are pure cognitions of the understanding and are attributed to rules (or laws) which are confirmed through experience. The difference from ideas of subjective judgments is that these are transcendent and they go beyond experience. Unlike math and physics we can not know them, with certainty, from experience.
Kant claims that the only way to get to the truth of reality is “only through a subjective investigation of reason itself, as a source of ideas.” What Kant means by this is to search for reason in the inner world; that is to look within the own mind of the self as opposed to search in the outer world and aside from experience. The inner subjective ideas Kant refers to such as God, Soul, and Freedom or the World are ideas that go beyond experience. Since subjective ideas, as God, Soul and Freedom cannot be proven or disproved through experience outside of reason Kant states that he must cast out knowledge and make room for belief.
If it was determined with certainty that God, Soul and Freedom did not exist at all how would that conflict with morality?
If the idea that God and the soul are not supported by a priori synthetic judgments as apodictically certain, a common morality can still be reached by reason alone. However, if freedom is not apodictically certain and can not be proven, then this poses a great problem for morality. How can one be responsible for his or her actions of he or she has no control over themselves? I believe that even if freedom does exist, but the soul and God do not, individuals would have to resort to an entirely subjective morality, which would differ from individual to individual. One individual’s line of reasoning may seem sound to him/herself, but to others it might seem unusual and ineffective.
ReplyDeleteIf God, freedom and soul did not exist, it would have an effect on morality in two ways. First, the prevailing Western conception of morality would necessarily have to change if we wanted our concepts to conform to reality. Second, the ways in which morality affects our daily lives would be altered in ways that are in some respects dramatic, but in many cases easily overlooked.
ReplyDeleteConcerning our (Western) notion of morality as the distinction between good and bad choices made by an individual, the non-existence of freedom would necessarily destroy this notion. Morality could be salvaged, however, were we to accept this change. No longer would there be any question as to why someone did something, beyond attempting to identify the causal chain leading up to their negative actions, but only an acceptance that things are as they should and must be. No one person would be able to change the outcome of anything of their own volition.
Concerning this change’s effect upon our daily lives, it may be that over time society would grow cold to the individual. If our choices are not choices but only a necessary outcome, there is nothing that would apparently stop pure logic from overtaking humanity. Consider, however, that the removal of freedom does not necessitate this change. Those who currently believe in these illusions, as Kant would term them, would likely continue to believe in them. They would be blinded to the truth, but in the end they would never know it and in many ways our current conception of morality could continue to exist if only on a purely speculative level.
Though it is true that notions of “God”, “soul” and “freedom” are beyond the scope of experience, it is incorrect to say that they are subjective ideas. Subjective ideas are mere judgments of perception and thus always risk the chance of being incorrect. One may glance at a person’s back and come to believe that the person is someone they are acquainted with. However, it turns out that the person is actually a mere stranger who has a very similar build to acquainted one. As seen in this example, judgments of perception are at risk of being incorrect and thusly, one cannot place the notions of “God”, “soul” and “freedom” in the same category for though they are a priori, they are also objective truths in the sense that their concepts are absolute. Regardless of what others believe them to be, these concepts remain unchanging. In other words, “it is what it is.” Furthermore, it is not the case that one can or cannot prove the existence of “God”, the “soul” and “freedom” for making that claim would imply that these concepts are based off empirical evidences. The purpose of experience is to shape and remold already existing ideas that people start off with. It is only a matter of whether one is aware of the concept’s true essence or not- hence the need of experience. From that, it is not the case that “God”, the “soul” or “freedom” may necessarily come into conflict with morality and ethics.
ReplyDeleteIf God and the soul did not exist, morality may still exist, but the determining factor may be more of one's definition of morality than anything else. As mentioned prior, morality based on an agreement arrived at via reason is a possibility with the right definition of morality.
ReplyDeleteThe second difficulty posed to morality is its existence absent of freedom. This is still a possibility, but again, dependent on one's definition of morality. Morality with the existence of God and the soul but absent of freedom has been argued to be the case by groups of theologists with considerable difficulty, but considerable viability as well. Morality without all three of these elements perhaps causes it to lose its transcendent component, but still maintains function. As a behavioralist could argue, morality could maintain its function by being a social means of control for the best communal outcome.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTo assume the concepts of God, Freedom, and the Soul is already something that many people don't assume in our world. This is most likely a problem for Kant as well, so in his discourse he attempts to establish a methodology through which anyone can arrive at his logical conclusions using their intellect and "concepts of pure reason". Perhaps it's not easy to argue his logic, but to this day, sufficient empirical proof has yet to be shown to prove the existence of these concepts.
ReplyDeleteHowever, we do not even need to prove God or Freedom to show the existence of morality without these things. Just the fact alone that human beings can think about something only attributed to belief and ways of reason is enough to say that morality exists in its simplest form, for how can we begin to grasp the concept of God who is perfect and "good" without some knowledge of the difference between what is "good" and "bad". It seems that it is entirely possible that human beings can establish this order, even if we can't prove God or the Soul outside subjective belief or reason.
In his writing on ethics, Kant uses this framework to create and objective morality that seems to be independent of ideas of God, Soul and Freedom. He ends up with what he calls the Categorical Imperative, which basically states that you should only act in a way that you would be comfortable elevating to a universal moral law. From this principle he is able to extract several axioms, like for example, you must always treat persons as ends in themselves, never means. I think this application of a priori synthetic judgment to create a law that is objective and necessary is extremely helpful in trying to understand all the principles we are discussing, as it provides a simple concrete example. Also it seems to answer your question because although the issue of freedom may still be involved in Kant’s Imperative, it is not necessary for it.
ReplyDeleteWith God, Soul and Freedom not existing there can be some questioning as to what morality is. But even so morality would exist as it does now. We have no certainty that God, Soul, and Freedom truly exists but people are still able to distinguish and make rational decisions based on their knowledge of what is "right" and what is "wrong".
ReplyDeleteThe concepts of God, Soul, and Freedom are more of a guideline for how society should live by. Religion exists as an idea of comfort for the "after-life" and we live by these teachings in our present life in order to reach that eternal life. The Soul is part of this notion of the "after-life" and freedom is a natural right given to all human beings. But the fact that these concepts factor into how MOST people live their lives it is not the basis needed to keep morality alive. If we take into consideration those people who do not follow religion in the minimalist of ways, these people still know what is proper and improper to do.
The concepts of God, Soul, and Freedom have been debated about for centuries and Kant is simply stating that these concepts do exist however they exist in the inner world. The quote that Linna focuses on, "only through a subjective investigation of reason itself, as a source of ideas,” brings about the following questions. If something is not of the physical world, tangible, that it isn't real? Or because it does exist in the mind that is enough evidence to prove it is real?
ReplyDeleteMorality becomes an extremely difficult issue to grapple with because it becomes an issue about whether or not objective morality can truly be achieved. The word "objective" can be defined as "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts." (dictionary.com) If this definition is used than morality cannot be objective. Morality is internalized, there is no absolute "right" or "wrong".
I have to claim my lack of understanding this "sexy" language Kant uses. I will make a stab at what I believe this all to mean. From what I can tell, Kant is allowing God, Freedom and Soul to exist without conforming to laws. As Linna states that these transcendental elements go beyond our experience - does this mean they are things in themselves?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Linna's question if these three fundamental ideas did not exist how would it conflict with morality - I would imagine chaos would ensue. Granted, I agree with Jennifer in that not everyone follows a strict path of enlightenment through religion, but in the same breath, I know that through religion we find crucial ideas of right and wrong. Values have an opportunity to be subjective from one to the next, but morality needs a base of laws for order.
It would conflict with morality if it was certain that God, soul and freedom did not exist because people establish morals based on the their belief in god, so with the knowledge that god does not exist people lose a reason to have morals. People believe that god liberates our soul and gives us eternal freedom and they feel that they have to do good things and be a person who knows between right and wrong. Without god people wouldn't think they need morals, it would less the morality in this world. The speculation that something exists is what keeps our minds moving toward greater thinking and having morals as a foundation to live by.
ReplyDeleteMorality exists only when there is soul and freedom. Soul and freedom only exist if god exists. To a determinist, all our actions and decisions are causal effects and make no room for choice or mans mental whims. Kants account that we can use metaphysics as a science must first prove Gods existence first and foremost before anything else. the concept of God exists but no actual proof. If the metaphysical argument is to be proven through pure reason it is imperative to quantify Kants theory with real facts.
ReplyDelete