My West Shokan neighbor forwarded this video of a town hall meeting in which several citizens question Congressman Pete Stark's (D-CA) support for the Obama health plan. It is good that some Americans have been standing up against this fiasco. One woman who questions the bailout says "Obama in eight months has accumulated a deficit three times larger than Bush's." But many Americans do not know what freedom is.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Kant on Ethics
In his Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals Immanuel Kant describes three versions of the categorical imperative, the law of reason on which a human will bases moral action. Morality, for Kant, exists in a sphere that is separate from prudent or sensibly motivated action, such as the quest for happiness. Kant did not put much stock in the pursuit of happiness and saw morality as something else, the duty to act in accordance with the universal moral law. The categorical imperative contrasts with the hypothetical imperative, which is just a reason to do things based on real-world motives, such as I aim to find a job so I ought to network and read the help wanted ads. Or I am a ship captain and therefore I ought to do what a ship captain ought to do. In determining what to do, people use what Kant calls "maxims" or rules of behavior such as Madoff's maxim that "lying to people to take their money is a good aim". While hypothetical imperatives determine action of a sensible nature, morality is universal and the categorical imperative is the universal ground of morality.
In contrast to the hypothetical imperative, the categorical imperative governs all maxims and defines morality. Because it is universal, argues, Kant, it must describe morality as a universal law. Thus the first way he states the categorical imperative is:
"Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law"
In other words, if you do something you are saying that you think it's ok if everyone does it.
The second way that Kant articulates the categorical imperative (and he controversially claims that all three ways are logically equivalent) is:
"So act as to treat humanity, whether in thine own person or in that of any other, in every case as an end withal, never as means only."
In other words, each person is an end to himself, and we should never use or harm others. The link between the categorical imperative and the Golden Rule is evident.
The third way relates to the second:
"A rational being must always regard himself as giving laws either as a member or as a sovereign in a kingdom of ends which is rendered possible by the freedom of will...Morality consists then in the reference of all action to the legislation which alone can render a kingdom of ends possible...In the kingdom of ends everything has either value or dignity...Morality is the condition under which alone a rational being can be an end in himself, since by this alone is it possible that he should be a legislating member in the kingdom of ends."
Philosophers continue to debate about Kant's ethical system to this day. Scholars like Onora O'Neill articulate vigorous and elegant arguments on Kant's behalf, while particularists like Jonathan Dancy argue that moral principles are impossible because any principle must permit exceptions so that the basis on which a moral conclusion is reached cannot be the principle itself.
Kant wrote Groundwork 225 years ago, in 1785. His claim, that morality must be deducible from rational (or "a priori") principles, continues to challenge and amaze readers today.
Even if Kant does not ultimately prove a rational basis for morality, and even if his system has been misused and condemned for fracturing moral belief, it remains a monument to the good, great and reasonable in humanity. Much as Aristotle said that we must look to the phronimos, the man wise in practical wisdom for guidance, so we may look to the moral aims of Immanuel Kant, who sought to ground morality on the cold, hard foundation of practical reason. In doing so he articulated the notion of the kingdom of ends, of humanity's dignity, and so even if his scheme does not withstand philosophical skepticism, it stands as a monument to the ultimate in human morality, intellect and ambition.
In contrast to the hypothetical imperative, the categorical imperative governs all maxims and defines morality. Because it is universal, argues, Kant, it must describe morality as a universal law. Thus the first way he states the categorical imperative is:
"Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law"
In other words, if you do something you are saying that you think it's ok if everyone does it.
The second way that Kant articulates the categorical imperative (and he controversially claims that all three ways are logically equivalent) is:
"So act as to treat humanity, whether in thine own person or in that of any other, in every case as an end withal, never as means only."
In other words, each person is an end to himself, and we should never use or harm others. The link between the categorical imperative and the Golden Rule is evident.
The third way relates to the second:
"A rational being must always regard himself as giving laws either as a member or as a sovereign in a kingdom of ends which is rendered possible by the freedom of will...Morality consists then in the reference of all action to the legislation which alone can render a kingdom of ends possible...In the kingdom of ends everything has either value or dignity...Morality is the condition under which alone a rational being can be an end in himself, since by this alone is it possible that he should be a legislating member in the kingdom of ends."
Philosophers continue to debate about Kant's ethical system to this day. Scholars like Onora O'Neill articulate vigorous and elegant arguments on Kant's behalf, while particularists like Jonathan Dancy argue that moral principles are impossible because any principle must permit exceptions so that the basis on which a moral conclusion is reached cannot be the principle itself.
Kant wrote Groundwork 225 years ago, in 1785. His claim, that morality must be deducible from rational (or "a priori") principles, continues to challenge and amaze readers today.
Even if Kant does not ultimately prove a rational basis for morality, and even if his system has been misused and condemned for fracturing moral belief, it remains a monument to the good, great and reasonable in humanity. Much as Aristotle said that we must look to the phronimos, the man wise in practical wisdom for guidance, so we may look to the moral aims of Immanuel Kant, who sought to ground morality on the cold, hard foundation of practical reason. In doing so he articulated the notion of the kingdom of ends, of humanity's dignity, and so even if his scheme does not withstand philosophical skepticism, it stands as a monument to the ultimate in human morality, intellect and ambition.
Mike Huckabee Should Study Economics
Last week Newsmax reported that Mike Huckabee felt that too many conservatives are too focused on economic rather than social issues. Newsmax's Ralph C. Hallow writes:
"In a sign of lingering divisions on the right, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee blasted last week's Conservative Political Action Conference, the largest meeting of conservatives in the nation, saying it was unrepresentative of the Republican Party as a whole.
"'CPAC has become increasingly more libertarian and less Republican over the last years - one of the reasons I didn't go this year,' said the former Southern Baptist minister, who enjoys a devoted following among Christian conservative voters and who ran for the GOP presidential nomination in 2008."
I have told my colleagues in New York's Republican Liberty Caucus the same thing I'm going to say to Huckabee. The religious movement cannot go it alone, nor can the libertarian movement. Together they can win. That means that libertarians need to compromise on certain social issues and Christian-oriented Republicans need to respect (compromise is not the right word because libertarian economics is totally compatible with Christianity) libertarians' economics concerns.
During the Bush years big government apologists, who often were really neo-conservatives, adopted Christian rhetoric but advocated policies that subsidized banking and the pharmaceutical industry supposedly in a move toward "compassionate conservativsm". Those of us who are committed libertarians will no longer stand for this. I would rather see Obama in the White House in 2012 than another Republican like George Bush or Mike Huckabee.
So Mr. Huckabee has to make up his mind. Either he will work with freedom oriented Americans, or he will remain a newscaster.
Moreover, the idea that there is anything "compassionate" or "social justice" oriented about Keynesian economics is ridiculous. Anyone who thinks that should contact the Foundation for Economic Education and obtain a copy of Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson. Laissez-faire capitalism provides greater social justice than any other economic system in human history.
Governor Huckabee, it's time to study economics.
"In a sign of lingering divisions on the right, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee blasted last week's Conservative Political Action Conference, the largest meeting of conservatives in the nation, saying it was unrepresentative of the Republican Party as a whole.
"'CPAC has become increasingly more libertarian and less Republican over the last years - one of the reasons I didn't go this year,' said the former Southern Baptist minister, who enjoys a devoted following among Christian conservative voters and who ran for the GOP presidential nomination in 2008."
I have told my colleagues in New York's Republican Liberty Caucus the same thing I'm going to say to Huckabee. The religious movement cannot go it alone, nor can the libertarian movement. Together they can win. That means that libertarians need to compromise on certain social issues and Christian-oriented Republicans need to respect (compromise is not the right word because libertarian economics is totally compatible with Christianity) libertarians' economics concerns.
During the Bush years big government apologists, who often were really neo-conservatives, adopted Christian rhetoric but advocated policies that subsidized banking and the pharmaceutical industry supposedly in a move toward "compassionate conservativsm". Those of us who are committed libertarians will no longer stand for this. I would rather see Obama in the White House in 2012 than another Republican like George Bush or Mike Huckabee.
So Mr. Huckabee has to make up his mind. Either he will work with freedom oriented Americans, or he will remain a newscaster.
Moreover, the idea that there is anything "compassionate" or "social justice" oriented about Keynesian economics is ridiculous. Anyone who thinks that should contact the Foundation for Economic Education and obtain a copy of Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson. Laissez-faire capitalism provides greater social justice than any other economic system in human history.
Governor Huckabee, it's time to study economics.
Let Socialists Live with American Exceptionalism
In 1630 John Winthrop, the governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, spoke these words:
"for wee must Consider that wee shall be as a Citty upon a Hill, the eies of all people are uppon us; soe that if wee shall deale falsely with our god in this worke wee have undertaken and soe cause him to withdrawe his present help from us, wee shall be made a story and a byword through the world..."
Since then, Americans have considered themselves to be exceptional: the freest, most God-fearing, successful and since World War II the most powerful nation. It is not surprising that those who dislike America claim that America ought not to be an exception; that it ought to adopt the tyrannical and godless practices of Europe. "Americans are foolish for not copying the Germans," claim the America-haters, the socialists and the progressives.
Yet I have seen or heard of few who would trade their place here for citizenship in other nations. Who among them offers to move to socialist nations like India or Cuba, who after sixty years have dirt poor economies? On the other hand, I have seen many, many come here from Europe, eager to partake of the fruits of 19th century laissez faire, that still flower but are dying, and patronizingly claim that America should become more like the Europe from which they departed. Such people should return home. And as Americans have heeded the naysayers, the socialists, those who hate freedom and who would trade it for a world that minimizes maximum loss, America has declined and lost its virtue.
Let us re-read De Tocqueville, who argued that America would occupy a special place in the world. America was greatest without central banking; without a planned economy; without a big government in Washington or the state capitals. And as we have imitated the Greeks, the Spaniards, the French and the British, so have we stumbled.
"for wee must Consider that wee shall be as a Citty upon a Hill, the eies of all people are uppon us; soe that if wee shall deale falsely with our god in this worke wee have undertaken and soe cause him to withdrawe his present help from us, wee shall be made a story and a byword through the world..."
Since then, Americans have considered themselves to be exceptional: the freest, most God-fearing, successful and since World War II the most powerful nation. It is not surprising that those who dislike America claim that America ought not to be an exception; that it ought to adopt the tyrannical and godless practices of Europe. "Americans are foolish for not copying the Germans," claim the America-haters, the socialists and the progressives.
Yet I have seen or heard of few who would trade their place here for citizenship in other nations. Who among them offers to move to socialist nations like India or Cuba, who after sixty years have dirt poor economies? On the other hand, I have seen many, many come here from Europe, eager to partake of the fruits of 19th century laissez faire, that still flower but are dying, and patronizingly claim that America should become more like the Europe from which they departed. Such people should return home. And as Americans have heeded the naysayers, the socialists, those who hate freedom and who would trade it for a world that minimizes maximum loss, America has declined and lost its virtue.
Let us re-read De Tocqueville, who argued that America would occupy a special place in the world. America was greatest without central banking; without a planned economy; without a big government in Washington or the state capitals. And as we have imitated the Greeks, the Spaniards, the French and the British, so have we stumbled.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
