Philosophers Immanuel Kant
(1724-1804) and John Rawls (1921-2002) compare in some interesting ways.
Here I will not bother to
sketch out a complete summary of their moral concepts, though that would be
interesting. Nor will I consider them—as I did Hobbes and Kant yesterday—in
terms of the "Moral Philosophy in Context" scheme, though no doubt
that would lead to some interesting insights too. Instead, I will briefly summarize
the main points of their moral philosophies, and focus on a key similarity in
their methodology that is revealed in the exercise of drawing some cartoons that are as incisive as they are droll.
Immanuel Kant
There are five main ideas to
keep in mind when examining Kant. Here, items 1, 2 & 3 are central to
the comparison we will draw up today.
1) The Good Will - People
are not animals, and rather than doing "what they want to do", or acting
on their feelings, or considering the consequences of various actions, people
can exercise the Good Will and instead do their duty. What is our
duty? Why, our duty to follow the rules. What are the rules? According to
Kant, these rules can be decided upon with reason. The next two concepts
describe the methodology philosophers can use for deciding these rules.
2) Universalizability -
Rules must be consistent and non-contradictory. They must be applicable
in ALL circumstances, and they cannot be inconsistent in application; that is,
"true" rules are Universal.
3) The Categorical
Imperative - our rules are categorically correct. They transcend
"worldly" considerations, they are established by reason, and
they are to be followed without exception.
4) Reversibility - This is
the Golden Rule idea. Treat others as you would have others treat you.
5) The Practical Imperative - People should not be used as a means to an
end.
Now, in seeking to understand Kant, let's examine how the concepts of
Universalizability and the Categorical Imperative guide the methodology
philosophers should (according to Kant) employ to decide what the rules should be.
Consider the following three cases:
Case One: Is it permissible to lie?
I am hiding Jews and Gypsies in my basement, when the Gestapo comes knocking
on the door. I open the door and the Gestapo demands to know it there are any
Jews and Gypsies in the basement. Is it moral to lie and say that I am not
hiding any Jews and Gypsies in the basement? Now, I understand that the Gestapo
will take these Jews and Gypsies to the concentration camp, where they will
die. I feel very strongly that I should lie to protect the people in the
basement, but what is my duty? Is it permissible to lie?
To answer this question, Kant wants us to Universalize the question
by elevating it to the realm of pure reason, to a transcendental level
beyond the earthly context, and at this transcendental level we can decide,
categorically, if it is permissible to lie. Kant would ask us to consider: What
if people were lying all the time? What if lying was a universal practice?
Clearly, if lying was a universal practice, all sorts of bad things would ensue
(and, hmm, it looks like Kant is considering consequences after-all—but maybe
that's OK because he is an important philosopher? Ahem.).
In any event, “Nein!” You may not lie to the Gestapo, and therefore you do
your duty and tell the Gestapo that the Jews and Gypsies are hiding in
the basement.
Case Two: Is it permissible to steal?
You have lost your job, and you cannot afford to buy bread to feed your
children. Meanwhile, there is a bread store down the road at the corner, with
bread sitting out front. You feel very strongly that you should steal to
feed your starving children, but what is your duty? Is it permissible to steal?
To answer this question, Kant wants us to Universalize the question
by removing it to a transcendental level beyond the earthly context, and at
this transcendental level we can decide, categorically, if it is permissible to
steal. Kant would ask us to consider: What if people were stealing all the time?
What if stealing was a universal practice? Clearly, if lying was a universal
practice, all sorts of bad things would ensue (and, erm, it looks like Kant is
considering consequences after-all—but maybe that’s OK because he is an
important philosopher?).
In any event, “Nein!” You may not steal bread to feed your children.
You exercise the Good Will, do your duty and let your children starve.
Case Three: Is it permissible to use deadly force?
An axe-wielding maniac has invaded your home, and he is chasing your wife
and children around the living room. He
is a pretty big guy. You don’t want to be judgmental, but he is evidently a
madman, and he is clearly about to strike your wife and children with his axe. You are holding a bow and arrow, and you could
use it to shoot the intruder and save the lives of your wife and children. But
you also cannot be squeamish; he is very big and, clearly, you will have to use
deadly force to stop him. You feel very strongly that you should use deadly
force to save your family, but what is your duty? Is it permissible to use
deadly force?
To answer this question, Kant would have us to Universalize the question
by removing it to a transcendental level beyond the earthly context, and at
this transcendental level we can decide, categorically, if it is permissible to
use deadly force. Kant would ask us to consider: What if people were using
deadly force all the time? What if using deadly force was a universal practice?
Clearly, if using deadly force was a universal practice, all sorts of bad
things would ensue (and, erm, it looks like Kant is considering consequences
after-all—but maybe that’s OK because he is an important philosopher?).
In any event, “Nein!” You may not use deadly force. Instead,
you exercise the Good Will and do your duty, and you let the maniac continue. The intruder chops up your family, and then
he chops up you. Yes, it is a big mess but you have done your duty. Remember, an animal might use deadly force to
protect its family, but you are no animal!
You have the power to exercise the Good Will! Wunderbar! Hang on! Where is the droll
cartoon? So far, this isn’t very funny.Alright, here is a funny cartoon.
I call this, “Herr Professor Doktor Kant with his Categorical Imperative Machine.”
Observe how Kant puts the questions into his Categorical Imperative Machine. The machine universalizes the question
by raising them to a transcendental level beyond the earthly context, and at
this transcendental level he can decide, categorically, if it is permissible to
lie, to steal or to use deadly force. Of course, the
entire methodology consist of abstractions that are not part of the real world,
that are mere abstractions in a cartoon. Here, Kant’s big ideas are abstractions
in a cartoon, where the cartoon is a description of things that are indifferent
to and removed from what should
be a real or relevant description of
a moral action. (And recall what Francis Bacon said when he
described the Idols of the Theatre.)
Keep this cartoon in mind as we turn to out next moral philosopher.
John Rawls
There are three main ideas
to keep in mind when examining Rawls. Here, items 4 & 5 are central
to the comparison we will draw up today.
1) Justice as Fairness - A political criterion whereby—rather than Natural Law
standards of Liberty and Happiness—Justice or Fairness are the basic criterion
of morality and state and institutional policy.
2) The Equity Principle - Each person has an equal
right to liberty (or freedom, or a reward) comparable with the same amount of
liberty for everyone else. Or, there must be Fairness in terms of equality of
opportunity for all.
3) The Difference Principle - Any equality (in
terms of rewards or punishments) is permissible to the extent that it is to the
advantage of everybody, including the people at the bottom of socio-economic
status, and that that reward or punishment is distributed under conditions of
equal opportunity.
4) The Original Position - This abstraction can be compared to Kant’s transcendental
realm of pure reason. Here, the principles
of justice can be decided upon from behind a Veil of Ignorance.
5) The Veil of Ignorance - This is the crux of Rawls’ “thought experiment”
in which people are asked to consider the question of Fairness and
Justice. Here in this hypothetical
construct, according to Rawls, “...no one knows his place in society, his class
position or social status, nor does anyone know his fortune in the distribution
of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength, and the like. I
shall even assume that the parties do not know their conceptions of the good or
their special psychological propensities. The principles of justice are chosen
behind a veil of ignorance.” In other words, consider a bunch of babies in Peter
Pan Land waiting to be born. The babies do
not know who they will be as human beings, or what their fortunes will be when
the stork carries them to the real world and they become human beings. In this Fairy Land, behind the veil of ignorance,
Rawls says they will all agree that they want to live in a Fair world of Equality
and Equal Opportunity.
Since these babies are ignorant of the real world, they are in an excellent
position to be reasonable and impartial about how the world should be run (yes,
at this point Bacon would be reminding us again about the Idols of the Theatre, and
also the Idols of the Market-Place). Meanwhile, let’s ask these babies some questions
about the real world.
One question will do: “Is it moral to tax people and then decide how to
spend that money without elected representatives either writing such tax laws
or deciding how the money should be spent?”
Kant would universalize the question by using his Categorical Imperative Machine
to elevate the question to the Transcendental Level of Pure Reason. In a similar way, Rawls uses his Veil of
Ignorance Machine to move the question behind the Veil of Ignorance. Here, behind the Veil of Ignorance, the Fairy
Babies can exercise their inclination for exercising fairness as they decide
the question reasonably: “Is it moral
to tax people and then decide how to spend that money without elected
representatives either writing such tax laws or deciding how the money should be
spent?
Alright, time for another funny cartoon.
I call this, “Herr Professor Doktor John Rawls with his Original Position
Machine.”
The babies ask, “Does it promote Fairness? Does it meet the criterion of Social
Justice? Does it adhere to the Equity and Difference Principles? If the answer is “yes” to these criteria,
then, Yes, taxation without representation is morally good.
Long ago along these at these Highbrow crossroads I gave John Rawls a mention in
connection with Confucian notions of law and morality. At that time, I promised my colleagues in the
Highbrow Commonwealth that I wound return to Rawls (and Elizabeth Anscombe) and dilate upon a
comparison of Confucian morality and the ideas of John Rawls. I have begun to fulfill that promise here, but
no doubt this is just the beginning of a much more involved investigation. To see that post on Confucius, please click
HERE.
