In his “Third Piece” Kant further substantiates his account of “the good” with his understanding of the relationship between the circumstances under which it might flourish and the role that it plays in creating such circumstances as a reciprocal one. Without making any direct metaphysical claim about the existence of the good outside of society he concedes that neither the role of the idea of goodness nor ethical societies are attainable or “apprehended through mature deliberation”(136) outside of human society. The church is presented as one manifestation of the human effort towards a god-pleasing morality. For Kant the role of scripture and religion is precisely to allow that an infinite maxim such as goodness exist in order that humanity might have a uniting idea to aspire to. Just as ethical communities will inevitably still fall short of their ideals different faiths in will fall short of the “one true religion” (118). Precisely in their variances is where we might find their shortcomings however it seems to be the case that like the “good” that finite beings are doomed to ever struggle to attain, the “one true religion” is also an impossibility. Nevertheless Kant is optimistic in his outlook for inevitable progress of human kind. The ultimate role of the notion of goodness is as a unifying ideal that leads, “unnoticed by human eyes” to a “world of an eternal peace”. (137) Goodness is then understood as a function of religion, more specifically, that which pleases god. He expounds upon such a definition of the good noting that one way in which human beings can please god is to act morally towards each other.
Initially it would seem that human access to the notion of the good cannot be arrived at through pure reason but rather needs “scripture” and “tradition”. Instead Kant will understand the rational concept of the good to be essentially the same as the “true religion” conception of it. The two understandings are different paths to a single idea.
The problem with such an effort to reconcile the religious perspective of the good with a faithless concept of morality is that it is rational in itself. Kant’s argument asks the faithless to concede that rationality itself is a true ideal.
You’re wrong!* You’re wrong. Wow, that’s fun to write. Far too often I am on the receiving end of that statement (I’m looking at you, Mom). Anyway, here is my position: You begin your post by stating “Kant further substantiates his account of ‘the good’ with his understanding of the relationship between the circumstances under which [the good] might flourish and the role that it plays in creating such circumstances as a reciprocal one.”
ReplyDeleteFine, I think. However, your next sentence states: “Without making any direct metaphysical claim about the existence of the good outside of society he concedes neither the role of the idea of goodness nor ethical societies are attainable or ‘apprehended through mature deliberation’ outside of human society.” A few issues:
1. The good as a concept, for Kant, is clearly a metaphysical a priori reality.
2. For Kant, the good therefore exists entirely outside any societal conception of it, though the first sentence of your post correctly alludes to the fact that in order for evil to be overcome a society of likeminded individuals is required since the trappings of evil are too much for an individual to overcome.
3. The idea of goodness per se and an ethical society based on rational moral law are both attainable, however not perfectly in this world.
* I mean this in the nicest possible way, and I am only referring to one part of one blog post. I find the conclusion of your post to be especially interesting and insightful.
It's not a metaphysical reality. It is, however, apriori.
ReplyDelete