Since Kant thought nonhuman animals and the rest of nature were simply implements for the use of humans and other beings (if any) capable of reason, it seems difficult to understand how he might be useful for developing an understanding of our environmental responsibilities. To do so, therefore, we will need to make a distinction between Kant’s personal views and assumptions, on the one hand, and the implications of the conceptual framework he developed for moral philosophy on the other. It may well turn out that not all of his views are entailed by his theory.
Take, for example, the idea that the will or intention of a self-reflectively conscious being, of one who “can have the ‘I’ in his representation,” is the basis of moral value and a necessary locus of respect and dignity. Kant assumed that among the creatures we encounter only humans have this quality, but we have good empirical and conceptual reasons to think that such ability comes in degrees, so it could represent a spectrum that includes many sentient animals other than ourselves. Moreover, as we have seen, the environmental matrix fostering and supporting all such beings appears sufficiently integrated and fragile that a Kantian ethic would entail robust (albeit indirect) respect for nature -- it is literally impossible to confer moral respect on oneself and others without taking great care with the natural world on which we all depend.
Thus we can happily assent to Kant’s insight about the moral primacy of persons without sacrificing either the moral significance of nonhumans or the possibility of a potent environmental ethic. This way of reading Kant is a bit like Korsgaard’s strategy, which might be worth another look.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I feel like Kant is very focus on humans and human's needs, leaving plants and animals as a resource to live by. Kant uses humans as an end and nature as a mean which humans use to help them survive in the end. Nature is just a means for human survival with little moral value to what happens to the natural world.
Korsgaard argues that we are required to provide legislative protection of animals and nature. Korsgaard puts great value on how humans are animalistic, "our love of eating and drinking and sex and playing; curiosity, our capacity for simple physical pleasure;our objection to injury and our terror of physical mutilation, pain or loss off control."
The problem between both Kant and Korsgaard arises when we have to chose over to issues and decide over why which option is protecting more of nature or providing more for our species. An environmental 'trade-off' which is discussed daily around the world today.
Amanda LEtoile
I thought I just made a case for reading Kant rather differently than that...
Let's discuss in class the sense in which Korsgaard is using the notion of "legislation."
It makes sense that Kantian ethic would include atleast indirect respect for nature. Without having respect for the natural world, how could anyone have respect for others or themselves? The environment and everything included in that realm is essential to human survival. Without the tools found in nature, humans would not have evolved into the sophisticated creatures we are today. Having that respect allows people to understand interactions and moral relationships.
If you are right, one consequent question is whether the environmental ethic that emerges: respect for nature as the matrix of all conscious valuers, gives us strong enough imperatives toward nature.
Some environmental theorists, worried perhaps that our responsibility for nature on these terms is formally indirect, don't trust that this is sufficient. It's hard to see why not, however, for at least when the environment is in crisis (as it currently seems to be) those "indirect" duties can be very strong indeed.
it is my experience that the majority of humans aren't capable of determining what will make them happy with the life that exists in the present. this is a conversation as sentient beings, projecting onto other sentient and nonsentient beings that are incapable of consciously producing their maximum potential to prosper in their relative existential parameters. the self reflective self is still at it's pupil stage. is it not pretentious to assume someone isn't making a genuine effort to manage their personal mood? we base our case on the consequences of their actions in whether they put themselves closer or further from suffering and happiness. but often we see that from a tourist perspective they are not fulfilling the responsibility to make themselves happy. the ego makes us think that we have shed our animal nature and are havedominion over this planet. the ego is insatiable, it can become so dense with drama that it consumes the majority of that persons time making the person miserable. why would any stage of life be any different than any other? every stage of life is fragile, from micro to macro existence will never be easy. this stress is the spark to which we know we must evolve and actually shed the physical body.
there are at least three basic competitors for our attention at any given time; animal nature, ego nature, and the intuitive nature (the tool used from animal to ego is instinct and the tool from ego to intuitive is rationality)and this explains the confusion everywhere we look. this is the evolutionary direction we have embarked upon, choosing not to shed material form will result in the extinction of humans. i also think the shedding of form would constitute for a different species name. this is scary for people to deal with, it is a long time coming since people still hold too tightly to tradition but this is pure consciousness. there is no need for a body because our thoughts will be translated into telepathic language eliminating communication breakdowns intentionally and unintentionally.
Post a Comment