DHARMARAM VIDYA KSHETRAM
Pontifical Athenaeum of Philosophy, Theology and Canon Law
Kantian Postulate of Practical Reason
Johnson V. T
Reg. No:M. 10407
Director
Dr. Shaju Chackalackal
A Seminar Paper
Submitted to the Faculty of Philosophy
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the M.Phil
Bangalore
November-: 2010
Kantian Postulate of Practical reason
Table of Content
The Autonomy of the will as the sole principles of all Moral laws and Heteronomy of the choice as the opposite in Kantian Ethics
1.1. Introduction………………………………… 1
1.2. Ground for the Practical reason…….. 2
1.3. The Empirical Reason…………………….. 3
2.1. The postulate of Practical reason…….. 4
2.2. Kantian Postulate of God …………………. 5
2.3. Postulate of Immortality ………………….. 6
2.4. Postulate of Freedom ………………………. 7
Conclusion ………………………………………… 8
Bibliography ………………………………………. 9
The Autonomy of the will as the sole principles of all Moral laws and Heteronomy of the choice as the opposite in Kantian Ethics
1.1. Introduction
The most perplexing question concerning about the morality is why should I be moral? According to Kant we be moral for the sake of duty and we experience an unconditional-universal categorical imperative as a command up on us to act morally right, The basic motivation or reason for moral activity cannot be self-interest or to win over others praise, heteronymous principle like attaining happiness for me or for others, the will of God and salvation of the soul can never serve as the foundation of the morality, since heteronymous principles exist out side of the self they can only be contingently related to us hence morality cannot derive from materials which is outside of the will because our obligation would be then depend upon something entirely contingent.[1] Kant ground morality in reason, according to him, morality comprises a set of demands that are unconditionally and universally valid, to support this understanding of moral principles one must show that they originate in reason apriori rather then contingent facts about human psychology or the circumstance of human life. Kant’s morality follows from the deeper commandments of autonomy which is to extend beyond good and evil and necessarily inescapable since it arises from within the very structure of the self.[2] It is suggested that Kantian morality is ultimately self regarding and autonomy of the will is both necessary and sufficient reason for the morality, it means the moral obligation is not depend on any other claim from out side
It is difficult to establish or articulate that how Kant tries to establish that moral principles originate in reason. At the same time Kant insists up on the importance of establishing moral law in practical reason apriori and subsequently state that a conception of practical reason from which he appear to extract a formulation of the categorical imperatives. The reasoning is central to the Kantian ethics, it has an over all impact on his moral theory, with which nothing could be substituted or grounded as a valid principles for the moral argument.[3]
1. 2. Ground for the practical reason
Our attempts is to drive morality from reason, an independent foundation for morality, definable and aprior, The conception of practical rationality Kant assumes is apriori and has a claim of universal validity, it is the distinguishing features of Kantian view that it does not attempt to derive morality from a morally neutrals starting point. The authority of the moral conception for us is reasonableness of applying them to ourselves and the motivation to act from it comes ultimately from an understanding of the ideals in question and how they are expressed in the actions which it single out.[4]
Reason can be related to two fold way, when reason determine the concept, it is the theoretical reason when it make real it is the practical reason, We are not often act according to impulses and desires, we distinguishes the action those are in direct conflict with the duty, if despite of appearance of various conflicting principles, we are in agreement of the moral principles shows, there are practical reason at work, the reason can be practical means that what we call the opposition between reason and desire is the very opposition it seems to be.[5]
Kant attempt to show that irrational and inconsistent qua rational actions, action motivated by desire and inclinations are not sufficient by itself to yield a moral conception. For it is fundamental to his moral view that we recognize different forms of practical reasoning that moral evaluation is distinct from prudential and involves a set of concerns not reducible to some thing more primitive.[6] The hypothetical imperative and the categorical imperative which represent empirically practical reason and pure practical reason are different kinds of normative standards and patterns of critical evaluations, Kant aim is to show that empirically conditioned use of reason does not exhaust the use of reason.
1.3. The Empirical Reason
The hypothetical imperative is the principle underlying the empirically conditioned use of reason, it states that if one wills an end then one ought to will the means needed to achieve it in so far as they are in one’s own power. It assess the rationality of actions relative to the ends which one desires or has adopted, and thus yield specific judgments about that an individual ought to do only in conjunction with information about her ends.[7] What makes human reason empirically conditioned is that the affiliation and assessment of action in relative to desired ends. The hypothetical imperative is often thought to apply primarily to the pursuit of one’s own happiness.
Hypotheses supply a principle or ultimate ground for organizing a system of empirical cognitions, hypotheses serves completely to satisfy my inquiring reason with respect to them thus a hypotheses is an assent of the judgment to the truth of a principle on account of the sufficiency of the consequences or assent to a supposition as a principle, hypotheses has only a degree of probability greater or lesser in degree, it is a more reasonable opinion or inference of a natural cause to a definitive cause, it cannot be a valid source or ground for the morality.[8] But pure practical reason will address question of evaluation that are beyond the scope of empirical practical reason, the pure practical reason will be concerned with the evaluation and choice of ends for their own sake. This will include the capacity to elect aims and goals viewed as intrinsically good or worthy of choice which can initiate action and structure larger practical pursuit.
2. 1. The Postulate of Practical Reason
Kant is reluctant to admit any external authority as the foundation of the morality, according to him the foundation of the moral law is autonomous self legislating practical reason or will. But he is ready to admit postulates for the morality, Postulate furnishes a definite rational explanation for the particular belief, a postulate presupposes a belief to be true, a postulate establishes the possibility of following a whole series of rules which we know will achieve the desired result within the context prescribed, we postulate for example that two parallel line can never intersect even in the infinity.[9] As far as moral postulate are concerned, such assumption are tailored to making the rules of practical living viable. The necessity of a practical postulate therefore has to do with the fact that it is indispensible as a standpoint for moral action. From the practical point of view postulate like God gives an objective reality which cannot be conformed or denied. Moral postulate has their truth value not solely in any theoretical application but in the practical office, they perform in providing a context for action. God is a practical postulate means whenever we behave morally we must at the same time think God as real to us in some manner of speaking, thinking God as a real bolster moral action because it validates the consequential end of such action the attainment of the highest good. It enables us to be obliged to the moral law. Kant insist that we cannot reason from God to morality but morality to God.
The ground of the necessary connection between virtues and happiness is not found in the moral law and yet this law requires us to take the highest good as the object of action, thus the exigencies of the moral life require belief in the existence of an intelligent moral God as the author of nature and harmonizer of natural events moral intentions and the worthiness to be happy.
2. 2. Kantian Postulate of God
Kant make a shift of attitude from the dominion of reason to postulates a possible experience of practical realities, he moves away from speculative knowledge to beliefs. A postulate of pure practical reason is a theoretical proposition which is not as such demosratable but which is an inseparable corollary of an apriori unconditionally valid practical law, postulates are necessary hypotheses not a condition for the origination of moral law, practice of law presupposes no possibilities of theoretical knowledge of realities. God the highest original good is the source of the highest derived good the coincidence between morality and happiness. The postulate of God gives consistency, and stability of the moral thought of the Kant. According to Kant belief in God founded up on moral law, Kant also reaffirms that God can be approached only through practical reason.[10]
Kant reduce all particular proofs of God existence to ontological, cosmological and physic-theological arguments, Kant demonstrate the influence of reason in this arguments, having been examined other proofs for the existence of God Kant accept the physic-theological proof as the realm of practical reason, the idea of God is valuable as much as it is a regulating principles, ordering unity and intelligibility and purpose in the universe.
2.3. Postulate of Immortality
Another condition to obey the moral law is personal immorality. It is the processes of gradual but endless striving for the moral perfections. It belong to the intelligible order, only God can gather up into one intuitive vision the various phases of moral striving which constitute the individual ‘s approach to holiness or perfect conformity to the law God and immortality is an essential condition of the persuasion of the moral laws, we need to postulate a future world to an infinitive to perfect the moral order, the purposiveness leads to the concept of immortality, it is a condition for the supreme good, a complete fitness and endless progress to the purposiveness of human existence, if one is sure that their moral practice would bring fruits in eternal life then there will be a moral perfection and a belief that there would be a flowering of immorality. It is not the moral law require the concept of immortality but it may serve as the incentive to practice moral law, Kant postulate immortality as the necessary condition for the moral law, he open the door of the infinite progresses. God and immortality is closely connected, practicing the moral law God and immorality are rewarding in the future, these are greatest good or virtue or source of happiness. [11] Kant reduce God and immortality to a mere incentive and reward for the practice of the moral law. Kantian out line of religion within the limits of reason alone is a religious naturalism and rationalism, and various religious categories are only a colourless and bare rewards for the fulfillment of moral perfection and reason.[12]
2.4. Postulate of Freedom
To arrive at the freedom we must being once more with the moral law as the sole fact of practical reason, although it is purely rational and internal the moral law imposes itself upon our reason somewhat after the matter of fact, since this law proposes an unconditional ought to us it also presupposes a can on the part of the rational agents[13]. The moral law tells us that whatever the conditions prevailing with the determined series of appearance, we are unconditionally bound to conform our actions to be free, if it is to be held responsible for acting in accordance with its own concept of the law .
Kantian view of practical freedom is revisited and revised more then once for more clarity, it not clear freedom is only found in the noumenal world or it is found in the empirical world as well, Kant insist that freedom of will is a necessary condition for moral law to be valid.[14] Kant also distinguish between transcendental freedom and practical freedom, transcendental freedom is a special kind of causality conceived metaphysically as the capacity to begin a causal series from itself independently of aprior cause. Practical freedom is the freedom is ascribe to our self when we think of ourselves as acting especially when we think of our self as moral agent, it involve the capacity to act for reason[15]. Kant distinguishes negative freedom and positive freedom practical freedom is the power to choose willkur that is independent of impulses of sensibility, independent of alien causes determining it, negative freedom is the capacity to act independently of some empirical desire, it is a capacity to deicide for our self how we will satisfy such desires. Kant thinks that practical freedom can be cognized empirically or at least recognized through certain empirical signs, we have capacity to overcome impressions on our sensory faculty of desire by representation of that which useful by presentation of that which is useful or injurious even in a more remote way these consideration also depend on reason.[16] Practical freedom in the positive sense is possession of a causality of a particular kind namely a capacity to follow determinate laws given by the faculty of reason, or the ability of reason to be of itself practical. It amounts to the capacity to recognize rational nature as an ends in itself as a reason for acting in a certain ways and to act in those ways on the basis of the reason. More generally it involves the capacity to act for reason rather then only on the basis of feeling impulses or desires that might occur independently of reason.[17]
Conclusion
What pure reason cannot achieve in the speculative order it can bring to pass in the practical. Kant had to restrict knowledge in the strict sense to the field of appearance so that practical faith could be exercised in regard to thing-in-themselves But critical philosophy still had the responsibility of adhering to its rigorous method of seeking proper foundation one is under the obligation that contingent choice are to be measured by a standard Though Kantian ethical theory is based on pure reason he could not bring it is logical conclusion and perfections without postulates of God immorality and freedom, the postulates of God, immortality and freedom are an attempt to bridge between theoretical reason and practical reason, it shows there is a limit to explain and appeal to the reason alone for the moral perfection ,Kant might have been under pressure from the Prussian police who forbade him to publish controversial materials that weaken the traditional orthodox believes in God and immortality and also he might have been under undue pressure from traditional believers to accommodate God in his philosophical system. Any way Kantian theoretical philosophy has a lots of reference to the God and religions and he indirectly admits that transcendental idea like God and immortality which beyond the grasp of reason is the foundation of the morality. Why should one be moral because reason command us to be moral, it is our duty and ought but also it is an incentive to moral perfection in eternity,
Kantian postulates give some kind of doubt that whether he was really confidant in presenting reason alone is the strong foundation fro the morality, Kant was a believer he gave sufficient room for the traditional concept to God and immortality in a round around way but what about a atheist who do not believe any of this postulate how could he achieve moral perfection, finally we can say that Kant went beyond reason and accepted traditional external authorities like God to establish his moral perfection which reason cannot do because human person is both rational and intuitive being
.
Bibliography
Kant, Immanuel. Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals. trns. Abbott.T.K. Amherst: Prometheus Books, 1988.
Wood, W., Allen. Kantian Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Collins, James. A History of Modern European Philosophy. Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1959.
Chackalackal, Saju. Unity of knowing and Acting in Kant: A practical Integration of the theoretical and the Practical. Bangalore: Dharmaram, Publication, 2002.
White, Richard. Morality as a self-Relation. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly, 16, (1992), 99-109.
Korner, s. Kant. London: Cox& Wyman Ltd. 1955
Beck, Lewis White. A Commentary of Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1960.
[1] White, Morality as a self-Relation, 99.
[2] Reath, Agency and autonomy in Kant’s Moral Theory: Selected Essays, 67.
[3] Reath, Agency and Autonomy in Kant’s Moral theory, 67.
[4] White, Morality as a self- Relation, 101.
[5] Korner, Kant, 129.
[6] Korner, Kant, 129.
[7] Reath, Agency and Autonomy in Kant’s Moral Theory: selected Essay, 71.
[8] Raschke, Moral action, God and History, in the Thought of Immanuel Kant 95.
[9] Collins, A History of Modern European Philosophy, 531.
[10] Collins, A History of Modern European Philosophy, 507.
[11] Chackalackal, Class lecture on Kantian Ethics, D.V.K, 2010
[12] Collins, A History of Modern European Philosophy, 534.
[13] Collins, A History of Modern European Philosophy, 527 .
[14] Wood, Kantian Ethics, 125.
[15] Wood Kantian Ethics, 126.
[16] Kant, Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of the Morals, 79.
[17] Wood, Kantian Ethics, 127.
No comments:
Post a Comment