[Vision2020] Kant and fundamentalism

[Joan Opyr]

Peter writes in response to Nate:

>Kant is now officially confused with Francis Hutcheson ("greatest happiness 
>for the greatest numbers") who is in turn now confused with perhaps....Sade 
>(the "ethics [sic] of gang rape")????? Weird, because it's nonsense and 
>also because y'all have been endlessly rehashing Kant's idea that morality 
>requires religion to be coherent.

I’m surprised no one has brought up the connection between Kant and 
religious fundamentalism before on this list.  It seems obvious.  According 
to Kantian moral theory, whether an action is right or wrong depends 
entirely on the principle behind it, i.e., the old “by what standard” 
question.  If you believe that the principle behind the action is always and 
everywhere right, then the action itself is necessarily right.  Likewise, if 
the principle is wrong, the action is wrong.

Of course, better and brighter people than our humble selves have taken 
Kant’s ideas to pieces, most notably the British philosopher, Bernard 
Williams, who wrote about the concept of "moral luck."  Sometimes, whether 
an action is right or wrong is in part a matter of chance; we often make 
moral judgments based upon circumstance.  A man brandishes a wallet that a 
policeman mistakes for a gun.  The policeman shoots him.  If the man is a 
blameless innocent, the policeman is vilified.  If the man is a serial 
killer, the policeman is an accidental hero.  Or so, as I understand it, 
goes the argument.  At any rate, Kantian theory, like fundamentalism, is 
unable to account for moral luck.

I expect Ted or Peter would be better able to expand on the 
Kant/fundamentalism theme.  I’ll stick to my own areas of expertise -- 
Beowulf, single malt Scotch, and high quality booger jokes.

Joan Opyr

_________________________________________________________________
Get MSN 8 and enjoy automatic e-mail virus protection.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus