1,166
edits
Difference between revisions of "Kant"
→Kant
(Added kantian political philosophy) |
(→Kant) |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
In any case, the conclusion of a Kantian framework is usually a standard of "consistency with the categorical imperative", where the categorical imperative is this imperative previously mentioned to make sure that contradictions do not take place upon universalizing an action. You can refer to the sample cases for examples of Kantian offense employed in debate. | In any case, the conclusion of a Kantian framework is usually a standard of "consistency with the categorical imperative", where the categorical imperative is this imperative previously mentioned to make sure that contradictions do not take place upon universalizing an action. You can refer to the sample cases for examples of Kantian offense employed in debate. | ||
=== The State === | === The State === | ||
However, many LD debate topics are not questions of an individual's action but rather questions of government action. | However, many LD debate topics are not questions of an individual's action but rather questions of government action. | ||
| Line 25: | Line 24: | ||
Unfortunately for the budding revolutionaries reading this, Kant was very much not an anarchist. He believed that the categorical imperative grants individuals rights. If the categorical imperative prohibits murder, that is equivalent to saying that agents have the right to life. | Unfortunately for the budding revolutionaries reading this, Kant was very much not an anarchist. He believed that the categorical imperative grants individuals rights. If the categorical imperative prohibits murder, that is equivalent to saying that agents have the right to life. | ||
However, rights do not exist as abstract moral entities. If they did, they would be useless. Would a violent murderer be persuaded to stop if their victim explained that, in fact, murdering violates the categorical imperative? This argument might be persuasive to an LD debater but will probably not save our poor | However, rights do not exist as abstract moral entities. If they did, they would be useless. Would a violent murderer be persuaded to stop if their victim explained that, in fact, murdering violates the categorical imperative? This argument might be persuasive to an LD debater but will probably not save our poor victim's life. | ||
Instead, the way we enforce rights is through the state. The Kantian state is responsible for punishing those who commit rights violations. There are a few important things to note about this punishment: | Instead, the way we enforce rights is through the state. The Kantian state is responsible for punishing those who commit rights violations. There are a few important things to note about this punishment: | ||
* First, it is retributive. For Kant, punishment is an intrinsically just response to crime. While it may be nice if this happens to deter future crime, this would be a side benefit. Rather, the state must punish because it is a logically necessary response to a rights violation. For a more complete account of retributive justice, see [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-retributive/ this]. | * First, it is retributive. For Kant, punishment is an intrinsically just response to crime. While it may be nice if this happens to deter future crime, this would be a side benefit. Rather, the state must punish because it is a logically necessary response to a rights violation. For a more complete account of retributive justice, see [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-retributive/ this]. | ||
* Second, it is backward facing. The state cannot punish for a predicted crime, or because it believes punishing someone innocent will deter future crime. The state only punishes in response to crime that has already happened. | * Second, it is backward facing. The state cannot punish for a predicted crime, or because it believes punishing someone innocent will deter future crime. The state only punishes in response to crime that has already happened. | ||
A useful analogy is that of a computer program. Given an input, a computer program should produce a predictable output. It should not change its output due to factors unrelated to the intrinsic qualities of the input. Similarly, the Kantian state receives a crime as an input and outputs a proportionate punishment. | A useful analogy is that of a computer program. Given an input, a computer program should produce a predictable output. It should not change its output due to factors unrelated to the intrinsic qualities of the input. Similarly, the Kantian state receives a crime as an input and outputs a proportionate punishment. | ||
| Line 39: | Line 36: | ||
For further information, the best resource for Kantian political philosophy is Arthur Ripstein’s Force and Freedom. | For further information, the best resource for Kantian political philosophy is Arthur Ripstein’s Force and Freedom. | ||
=== Readings === | === Readings === | ||
[https://archive.nyu.edu/handle/2451/34651 Velleman, A Brief Introduction to Kantian Ethics] | [https://archive.nyu.edu/handle/2451/34651 Velleman, A Brief Introduction to Kantian Ethics] | ||