07.09.09
Kant, virtue and happiness
Comment on Kant, freedom, science and modernity
dandy said,
July 8, 2009 at 10:24 pm ·
“This is significant feedback: noone can understand what is being pointed to: the discrete freedom sequence, or more simply the double birth of democracy, according to a complex pattern of emergentise. As we study the eonic effect a whole series of strange things like this appear. That’s all I meant.
Hucklebird’s statements aren’t really the point. I was pointing to the way in which the emergence of freedom shows a complex structure across world history. That’s pretty good competition with the drama of revelation, so-called foisted on Axial Age Israel.”It is not clear from what you assert here what is your own opinion on the subject of happiness, a topic that claims considerable attention from Kant in his writings about ethics, and has everything to do with the question of freedom in the individual.
Is happiness a diversion in your opinion? Is it valueless?
You seem to be changing the subject, but for those unfamiliar with Kant let me say that one aspect of his ethical discourse is the later speculative rational theology discoursing on the relationship of virtue and happiness.
At this point many, especially secular, students of Kant get uncomfortable with the implications of what he is saying, or not saying, as he is a bit tight-lipped it seems. And just here I can’t quite elucidate the full complexity of his thinking, but what I can do is give you my own brief sketch to grasp perhaps the basic issue (and this may not be Kant’s philosophy).
Kant points to a drastic hidden flaw in naturalistic ethics, one that few would think a flaw at all.
In my version (not Kant), merely as a sketch of one of multiple thought lines, the point is that projects of virture can’t easily be realized in real time. So the question confronts us: why bother? Why not maximize evil in a universe created as though by devils like a casino where none can win, but a few can prevail until destruction by death.
Is virtue forever doomed, as in a Darwinian universe?
In less drastic language, Kant tends to think in terms of virtue and happiness, and ask if the two can be achieved at once or in the end unified. He thinks not, and considers that there must a larger universe of discourse or experience where the two can be given some realization. Many problems arise here, because Kant’s thinking is very much about an ethics that doesn’t think in terms of rewards, which complicates his point. Best to go to the discourses that deal with that, beyond my quick sketch.
One way I think of such things is in terms of computers. Does the universe keep records. Do moral choices register anywhere.
Consider this example, a real one from many years ago as I passed through the new age movement: a strong vegetarian who wished to do without leather shoes in addition to his dietary renunciations. Further, such a person would swear solemnly not to regress confronted with the difficulties that arise at once.
For that is hard to bring about. Try it, with the funds of an unemployed person with no resources (basically a secular Buddhist monk) try to find shoes that fit the requirements (rich people of course can find expensive solutions here)
Where will a man with little money find shoes with no leather? Often there is something to be had, cheaply. But basically such an ethical choice almost requires renunciation of a full spectrum of social activity. With the junk shoes at low cost available in that category you would have a hard time finding a decent job: who is this with such shoes, the employer will ask. And your friends will soon be former friends.
The full tale can be elaborated in many ways. But its core is actual history, someone I met years ago. I always wondered at such a person and learned a lot.
Ordinary jerk-off Americans are total slobs, destined to perish no doubt, and in the majority would laugh at such a thing, but such people are more than frequent in Indian religious traditions. The dilemma is very real for those on the path of enlightenment and led to the traditions of world renunciation, for this and other reasons.
Americans might think of this question the next time they guzzle a big Mac.
The point is suddenly obvious: such a project of virtue will provoke immense unhappiness, and will, taken to a logical conclusion, lead probably to the destruction of the virtuous one, or at least to marginal existence in society.
So we see already a good example of the dilemma.
So the question lurks to haunt us: does the universe keep records? Does it remember the gestures of the virtuous who perish in the attempt?
We don’t know. But with this example Kant’s rational ethics/theology might suddenly come to life.
We don’t actually live in the Complete Hell darwinists and nihilists would have us live in. so the secular rejection of Kant’s thinking here is not a foregone conclusion. Nota bene. The evidence for Complete Hell is not conclusive.
I have a funny story about this. I recall Tipler’s famous;y idiotic but brilliantly provocative book on the Omega Point.
He put the question most aptly: can the universe maintain records of the physical totality of a human being (otherwise laughably called ‘resurrection’ body, a term best dropped) Thirty years ago we would have said no, and laughed, but now all of a sudden the data sets involved don’t seem so preposterous. I don’t know, but maybe give it another thirty years.
So at that point, and for many other better reasons, it suddenly seems as if the stock of Kant’s quixotic thinking on virtue and happiness rises again.
Lots to say here, Danny. Many give the blog readers some references to the literature here???