I would personally approach ethics in the Thomistic light more so than the Kantian light.
I was approaching some means as to reconcile the two. I obviously don’t think Kant was infallible, but I do think the categorical imperative is something worth exploring.
The first major problem with Kant’s philosophy is solipsism. According to his epistemology, we cannot get outside of our heads. That is, he attempted to amalmagate the Newtonian physics that was in the air of his day into a moralism, and this is wrought with problems.
Solipsism is the belief that only I exist. This is clearly not what Kant believes; did you mean, rather, that it is impossible to break through the fact that our senses are subjective? I agree with Kant on this point, actually. In fact, I think this melds well with Aquinas’ harmony between faith and reason. We can use reason to determine many earthly questions, but we have to have faith that fundamentally our reason can be of use at all.
but here’s the problem, if I cannot know ‘things in themselves’ exterior to me (which Thomas will say to some extent is true as to the absolute essence of a thing), and my mind constitutes those things, then how do I know what I experience in the realm of the senses is the same as what you experience?
This is why I find Kant’s philosophy to be so attractive. This is an elephant-in-the-room that other intellectuals were afraid to touch because it would lead to solipsism. I highly admire Kant for the fact that he was able to admit that our senses are fallible, but while holding onto the idea of an objective morality.
Immanuel Kant’s ethics are based on the premise that good intent is what counts, since humans cannot control the outcome at all for various reasons; the main one being that we can’t see the whole picture.
Basically, his understanding of ethics has created the great “thou shalt not” and that morality is all about Law and not about happiness.
He did say that following the moral law will inevitably leave us unhappy, because if we seek happiness, then that taints our actions with a circumstantial desire; as opposed to unconditional good will. I disagree with Kant on this point, being that you can be happy without actively seeking happiness.
How often do we hear secular folks saying they cannot accept Christianity because it only tells us what we cannot do, rather than what we can? For Kant, like the Stoics, freedom was essentially saying no to the senses.
On the contrary, the third section of the Grounding of the Metaphysics of Morals establishes two kinds of freedom: negative freedom, whereby other things do not interfere with us (like a law); and positive freedom, whereby we use our free will to follow the moral law.
Freedom and morality has to be a balance between the two. We have to do good, and not solely avoid evil; and on the other side, we have to willingly follow the categorical imperative, not have it forced upon us.
It commands, do this but only for duty. What enticement is there in that?
Kant is a bit vague on this point. I think doing good because it is the will of God will qualify as doing something for the sake of duty. Perhaps not; in which case, I agree with you.
According to Kant, furthermore, we can never be happy because, as he says in the Critique of Practical Reason, we cannot ever have a holy will, even in the afterlife. That my friend, is not Catholic.
I agree with you. I am not advocating raw Kantianism, I am only enticed by the fact that he was able to use reason to develop a consistent moral law that for the most part agrees with Catholicism. I think Thomism and Kantianism can be reconciled, which would largely increase the rational basis for the Catholic faith, I think.
But correct me if I’m wrong: wasn’t Kant’s point that we can’t be happy in this life, only the afterlife, because it is the afterlife in which we attain an unconditionally good will?
What motivation have we to behave well on Kant’s account?
The Aristotle quote comes to mind: “I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded, what others do only from fear of the law.”
Although I do disagree with Kant in that we can’t be happy in this life.
You’d be better off studying Aristotle and Aquinas, because they are much more in line with Catholic theology.
I adore Aquinas, I really do. But I feel that Aquinas’ proof for Christianity are not solid enough to convince most other thinkers, and his writings on the moral law are almost entirely based on the fact that they are in accords with divine law. Kant’s philosophy shows that this isn’t the case, that moral law is inherently rational; so even an atheist should follow it.
While our final goal should be to bring others to the Catholic Church, it is possible to do this by showing that the Catholic view of moral law is the most reasonable, through Kantian conclusions.
They avoid relativism because they say there are objectively evil acts, but they do not eliminate consequences from their reasoning (i.e. consequences, intentions, accidents, etc. are all absorbed into the object of an act which then determines whether it is good or bad.) Why is it, do you think that we charge a drunk driver with a DUI when he doesn’t kill people, and with manslaughter when he does? It’s because we instinctively recognize that consequences do matter (although not as much as the utilitarians say.)
This is another point that I strongly agree with Kant on. We can’t control circumstances at all. Only an omniscient God could calculate what the end result is of every action. So aiming at a specific end can often be impossible, being that humans don’t have the intellectual capacity to see if in fact, what we do will have the intended consequence. This is why I feel that morality based on intent is the only system that can be internally consistent.
Finally, Kant’s philosophy is not impervious to the performance of intrinsically evil acts. For instance, “never tell a lie in your whole life except once.” This is perfectly acceptable on account of the categorical imperative.
In what way?
