I don't mean to defend a particularist reading of Kant, if such a thing is possible, but I do think particulars matter.
Nothing about my interpretation is meant to repudiate or vitiate the defining universality, objectivity, and necessity of Kant’s view. The Categorical Imperative still anchors and informs moral life. The thought is just that moral requirements can be objective and necessary without being simple and transparent: the Moral Law can be real but sometimes hard for us to interpret and live up to.
This is the Kant I see in the Metaphysics of Morals with its framing emphasis on the need for experimentation and moral growth; the focus on the development of virtue and personal strength of character; the nuanced engagement with our nature and psychology and how these bear on the realization of our moral natures that runs throughout this work; and the depiction of ethical obligation as wide and recognition of the need for casuistry when different grounds of obligation conflict.
Thanks for this! I've read a little bit of Barbara Herman's work; sounds like you two may have some common perspective.
> moral requirements can be objective and necessary without being simple and transparent
But I wonder: even if it's super complex, in principle is there a "true" moral "algorithm" out there that could do the interpretation for us and make (approximately) all the right moral decisions? AI has shown that a lot of things that seem too complex to put explicit rules on can be at least approximated with precise algorithms.
Perhaps ironically, the AI model you envisage is reminiscent of the role played by the Categorical Imperative Procedure in some accounts and raises the same concerns about rigorism and blind rule following in moral life.
As I understand him, Kant thinks we realize our rational nature in a distinctive state of being essentially involving reflective engagement with our choices and lives. A system like this would obviate the need for this kind of engagement and threaten to reduce moral choice to a kind of blind obedience to rules taken to be authoritative.
How should we reconcile the Groundworks' emphasis on grand phrases like "all rational beings" (which goes well beyond humans) with the MoM's emphasis on human psychology (and other human stuff like growth, experimentation, character, virtue)?
Kant leaves open the possibility that there could be non-human rational beings. The focus on human agency just reflects the fact that humans are the ones we know of and The Metaphysics of Moral's interest in the application of formal moral principles to the nature and circumstances of our agency.
Interesting! How do you view the relationship between (your version of) Kantian ethics and moral particularism?
I don't mean to defend a particularist reading of Kant, if such a thing is possible, but I do think particulars matter.
Nothing about my interpretation is meant to repudiate or vitiate the defining universality, objectivity, and necessity of Kant’s view. The Categorical Imperative still anchors and informs moral life. The thought is just that moral requirements can be objective and necessary without being simple and transparent: the Moral Law can be real but sometimes hard for us to interpret and live up to.
This is the Kant I see in the Metaphysics of Morals with its framing emphasis on the need for experimentation and moral growth; the focus on the development of virtue and personal strength of character; the nuanced engagement with our nature and psychology and how these bear on the realization of our moral natures that runs throughout this work; and the depiction of ethical obligation as wide and recognition of the need for casuistry when different grounds of obligation conflict.
Thanks for this! I've read a little bit of Barbara Herman's work; sounds like you two may have some common perspective.
> moral requirements can be objective and necessary without being simple and transparent
But I wonder: even if it's super complex, in principle is there a "true" moral "algorithm" out there that could do the interpretation for us and make (approximately) all the right moral decisions? AI has shown that a lot of things that seem too complex to put explicit rules on can be at least approximated with precise algorithms.
Perhaps ironically, the AI model you envisage is reminiscent of the role played by the Categorical Imperative Procedure in some accounts and raises the same concerns about rigorism and blind rule following in moral life.
As I understand him, Kant thinks we realize our rational nature in a distinctive state of being essentially involving reflective engagement with our choices and lives. A system like this would obviate the need for this kind of engagement and threaten to reduce moral choice to a kind of blind obedience to rules taken to be authoritative.
You don't have keep responding but:
How should we reconcile the Groundworks' emphasis on grand phrases like "all rational beings" (which goes well beyond humans) with the MoM's emphasis on human psychology (and other human stuff like growth, experimentation, character, virtue)?
Kant leaves open the possibility that there could be non-human rational beings. The focus on human agency just reflects the fact that humans are the ones we know of and The Metaphysics of Moral's interest in the application of formal moral principles to the nature and circumstances of our agency.