Kant: “From such crooked wood as humanity, nothing perfectly straight can be built.”
”Kant begins from the assumption of humanity’s inherent imperfection.”
COMMENT
“Crooked wood”, like every other concept in social reality, is a human invention. In reality we are no more crooked than any other entity in physical reality. Our supposed crookedness arises from our imagining how we ought to be versus how we actually are.
AGREE #FSCWagr_1: Kant’s Three Principles
“[Kant] outlines this in three interrelated forms:
1. Ethics is universal - a principle is only ethical if it is binding on every rational being
2. Mutual respect - treat others always as ends and never merely as means
3. Communal autonomy - act as if you are a part of a merely possible ‘realm of ends’, whereby your goals do not prevent others from attaining theirs.”
COMMENT
Forget perfection. What we face today is the non-trivial possibility that we will willfully destroy human civilization. To me it’s clear that only through at least some semi-universal ethics can we sidestep this dire possibility. I agree with Chris’s rejection of what he sees as Kant’s 1st principle. He seems to accept Kant’s other two principles. He’s just dubious that in the present situation they can exert any significant power. He may be right. Personally, I can be either hedonistically sleepwalking, or I can resist. In my own way I choose resistance.
There are maybe a few million of us around the globe that see the possibility of either the demise of civilization, or of some sort of long-term technocratic 1984 or Solent Green. We’re attempting, each in our own way, to contribute to mitigating these two possibilities. Humankind now has mathematical and computer programs that can on the one hand model the movement of galaxies millions of light years from us, and on the other the subatomic phenomena that enable birds to navigate. But we have only guesses about the political, economic, and social configuration our civilization might be in in a decade, or a century, from now. Still, based on our meager and distorted models of our individual realities and shared social reality, we can imagine future utopia, or at least pantopia. So, I act out of inner necessity.
Thank you as always for your thoughtful commentary, Frank. Some quick responses...
Frank: "'Crooked wood', like every other concept in social reality, is a human invention. In reality we are no more crooked than any other entity in physical reality. Our supposed crookedness arises from our imagining how we ought to be versus how we actually are."
Aye, but the point of this quote within this piece is to undermine the surprisingly popular view that Kant's ethics are too demanding, and would require superhuman powers to enact. However, at the same time, I think you brush this under your social reality carpet too swiftly. There is a sense in which this applies to our species and not (so much as we know) to others: we can imagine ways that we ought to be, and therefore we can be aware of this mismatch between expectations and behaviour that Kant couches in his metaphor of 'crookedness'. This is a non-trivial wrinkle. If, like me, you think that promising is an action that entails obligations (some deny this), Kant's remarks in this regard are not so easily dismissed.
Absolutely we are dealing with a metaphysical metaphor in this remark - but that doesn't mean it doesn't hold some truth. If I translate this truth into an evolutionary metaphor it would be that the conditions within which traits were selected change over time. As such, literally no animal is perfectly adapted for every environment it encounters over the time of its species existence. This is another way of expressing the point about 'crooked wood', and it is especially relevant to humans because our very imagination widens this disparity in significant ways.
Frank: "To me it’s clear that only through at least some semi-universal ethics can we sidestep this dire possibility. I agree with Chris’s rejection of what he sees as Kant’s 1st principle. He seems to accept Kant’s other two principles."
I do. But I accept them as principles of my own ethics. Because I reject the first formulation, I have no business forcing them onto other people. The beauty of this for me is that it is an ethical framework that obligates acceptance of other ways of being - something oft claimed to be a value these days, but that is clearly either not understood or uttered insincerely.
"...He’s just dubious that in the present situation they can exert any significant power. He may be right. Personally, I can be either hedonistically sleepwalking, or I can resist. In my own way I choose resistance."
The collapse of human rights makes it clear that this conception no longer has any power. Anyone loyal to concepts such as citizenship, autonomy, or liberty (and many more that were part of the post-World War II social order) is therefore obligated to act in resistance, just as you say.
With unlimited love and respect,
Chris.
PS: I mainly ran this piece to clear the path for next week's piece, for which a little understanding of Kant's ethics is essential.
Chris: “I think you brush this under your social reality carpet too swiftly. There is a sense in which this applies to our species and not (so much as we know) to others: we can imagine ways that we ought to be, and therefore we can be aware of this mismatch between expectations and behaviour that Kant couches in his metaphor of 'crookedness'.”
COMMENT
Thank you. In that sense, yes. “Crooked” in that we can imagine straightness that we don’t often realize.
PERSONAL COMMENT #FSCWcmnt_1: Primacy of Personal Principle
Chris: “But I accept them as principles of my own ethics. Because I reject the first formulation, I have no business forcing them onto other people”
COMMENT
Chris (re Kant): “a principle is only ethical if it is binding on every rational being.”
But a principle that is binding on every rational being may be ethical, yes?
It seems to me that the principle of accepting all other principles as legitimate for the person holding them must be at least in plurality for it to have any operational power. Indeed, perhaps the fact that this is not presently the case might be the root cause of our present troubles.
SEE DIFFERENTLY #FSCWdiff_1: Human Rights Still Standing
Chris: “the collapse of human rights”
COMMENT
Really? Human minds are not so constructed that they can create perfect societies. At present human rights are under siege, and some are presently comatose, but this assertion strikes me as an exaggeration.
Thanks for continuing this discussion - you bring up some important points.
"Chris (re Kant): “a principle is only ethical if it is binding on every rational being.”
But a principle that is binding on every rational being may be ethical, yes?"
If (and its a big 'if'!) there are certain principles that are binding for all forms of rationality, then the first principle survives in a narrower form than Kant intended. Kant felt that rationality was capable of eventually converging regardless of culture (he writes very eloquently on this point, actually). But after the twentieth century, it became clearer that rationality is a condition maintained within particular practices, and that different forms of enquire can therefore have different rationalities. (For more on this, Alasdair MacInytre's Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry hits this head on - although coming as it does from a position of defending traditional rationality it might not resonate with you, Frank!)
"It seems to me that the principle of accepting all other principles as legitimate for the person holding them must be at least in plurality for it to have any operational power. Indeed, perhaps the fact that this is not presently the case might be the root cause of our present troubles."
Aye, past, present, and future troubles, I'd venture. This failure to accept true diversity of thought while pretending a commitment to difference by picking out certain identity characteristics and championing them is at the heart of the contemporary epistemological crisis, since it associates conformity with diversity.
"Chris: “the collapse of human rights”
Really? Human minds are not so constructed that they can create perfect societies. At present human rights are under siege, and some are presently comatose, but this assertion strikes me as an exaggeration."
You are far from alone in thinking I am exaggerating. I suppose if you want to look at human rights just as a set of laws, then it's possible to say "okay, so we're ignoring this one, and we're bending this one to the point of breaking, but the rest all seem okay". But human rights, while enshrined in international law, are not just a rulebook. They are a principled way of providing protections for humans against state interference.
The moment we countenance an exception, we have voided the entire paradigm that gives human rights its meaning. We did this first by saying that 'terrorists don't get human rights protections and can be murdered and/or tortured without legal process' - that already voided human rights. Then we went further by saying 'if you don't consent to this particular medical treatment, your rights are voided'. Some went so far as to argue for withdrawal of healthcare for those who would not comply with a directive that was not even well-grounded in the available medical data! This went far beyond 'bending the rules', it shattered the entire framework.
The moment human rights are presented as conditional, the paradigm of human rights that descends from Kant's philosophy are voided. This is the situation we currently face. Furthermore, there's no way back to the post-World War II 'universal declaration of human rights' from this juncture, because both its promises and its premises are broken - conceptually and pragmatically - and in fact have been for some time. If we want to re-establish a new set of protections at this point it requires what I have called 'the Third Accord' (i.e. following the 'Rights of Man' and 'Human Rights').
I do not see my interpretation here as resting on an idealised and unattainable state - I believe the human rights regime, despite flaws and problems, was doing reasonably well up to the end of the twentieth century. In the same way that Harry Frankfurt argues that a cheater still reveals a respect for the rules (they know what they are but opt to break them), violations in the twentieth century were 'cheating' not 'voiding' human rights. It is the early twenty first century that has seen the rise of those who cannot even claim to 'cheat' the human rights accords, since we are told that they simply don't apply. We have abandoned these promises and substituted nothing but excuses.
Many thanks for the opportunity to elaborate on these points! Much appreciated.
Stranger Worlds
From Such Crooked Wood
Ackerman
SEE DIFFERENTLY #FSCWdiff_1: Crooked Wood
Kant: “From such crooked wood as humanity, nothing perfectly straight can be built.”
”Kant begins from the assumption of humanity’s inherent imperfection.”
COMMENT
“Crooked wood”, like every other concept in social reality, is a human invention. In reality we are no more crooked than any other entity in physical reality. Our supposed crookedness arises from our imagining how we ought to be versus how we actually are.
AGREE #FSCWagr_1: Kant’s Three Principles
“[Kant] outlines this in three interrelated forms:
1. Ethics is universal - a principle is only ethical if it is binding on every rational being
2. Mutual respect - treat others always as ends and never merely as means
3. Communal autonomy - act as if you are a part of a merely possible ‘realm of ends’, whereby your goals do not prevent others from attaining theirs.”
COMMENT
Forget perfection. What we face today is the non-trivial possibility that we will willfully destroy human civilization. To me it’s clear that only through at least some semi-universal ethics can we sidestep this dire possibility. I agree with Chris’s rejection of what he sees as Kant’s 1st principle. He seems to accept Kant’s other two principles. He’s just dubious that in the present situation they can exert any significant power. He may be right. Personally, I can be either hedonistically sleepwalking, or I can resist. In my own way I choose resistance.
There are maybe a few million of us around the globe that see the possibility of either the demise of civilization, or of some sort of long-term technocratic 1984 or Solent Green. We’re attempting, each in our own way, to contribute to mitigating these two possibilities. Humankind now has mathematical and computer programs that can on the one hand model the movement of galaxies millions of light years from us, and on the other the subatomic phenomena that enable birds to navigate. But we have only guesses about the political, economic, and social configuration our civilization might be in in a decade, or a century, from now. Still, based on our meager and distorted models of our individual realities and shared social reality, we can imagine future utopia, or at least pantopia. So, I act out of inner necessity.
Thank you as always for your thoughtful commentary, Frank. Some quick responses...
Frank: "'Crooked wood', like every other concept in social reality, is a human invention. In reality we are no more crooked than any other entity in physical reality. Our supposed crookedness arises from our imagining how we ought to be versus how we actually are."
Aye, but the point of this quote within this piece is to undermine the surprisingly popular view that Kant's ethics are too demanding, and would require superhuman powers to enact. However, at the same time, I think you brush this under your social reality carpet too swiftly. There is a sense in which this applies to our species and not (so much as we know) to others: we can imagine ways that we ought to be, and therefore we can be aware of this mismatch between expectations and behaviour that Kant couches in his metaphor of 'crookedness'. This is a non-trivial wrinkle. If, like me, you think that promising is an action that entails obligations (some deny this), Kant's remarks in this regard are not so easily dismissed.
Absolutely we are dealing with a metaphysical metaphor in this remark - but that doesn't mean it doesn't hold some truth. If I translate this truth into an evolutionary metaphor it would be that the conditions within which traits were selected change over time. As such, literally no animal is perfectly adapted for every environment it encounters over the time of its species existence. This is another way of expressing the point about 'crooked wood', and it is especially relevant to humans because our very imagination widens this disparity in significant ways.
Frank: "To me it’s clear that only through at least some semi-universal ethics can we sidestep this dire possibility. I agree with Chris’s rejection of what he sees as Kant’s 1st principle. He seems to accept Kant’s other two principles."
I do. But I accept them as principles of my own ethics. Because I reject the first formulation, I have no business forcing them onto other people. The beauty of this for me is that it is an ethical framework that obligates acceptance of other ways of being - something oft claimed to be a value these days, but that is clearly either not understood or uttered insincerely.
"...He’s just dubious that in the present situation they can exert any significant power. He may be right. Personally, I can be either hedonistically sleepwalking, or I can resist. In my own way I choose resistance."
The collapse of human rights makes it clear that this conception no longer has any power. Anyone loyal to concepts such as citizenship, autonomy, or liberty (and many more that were part of the post-World War II social order) is therefore obligated to act in resistance, just as you say.
With unlimited love and respect,
Chris.
PS: I mainly ran this piece to clear the path for next week's piece, for which a little understanding of Kant's ethics is essential.
AGREE #FSCWagr_2: Human “Crookedness”
Chris: “I think you brush this under your social reality carpet too swiftly. There is a sense in which this applies to our species and not (so much as we know) to others: we can imagine ways that we ought to be, and therefore we can be aware of this mismatch between expectations and behaviour that Kant couches in his metaphor of 'crookedness'.”
COMMENT
Thank you. In that sense, yes. “Crooked” in that we can imagine straightness that we don’t often realize.
PERSONAL COMMENT #FSCWcmnt_1: Primacy of Personal Principle
Chris: “But I accept them as principles of my own ethics. Because I reject the first formulation, I have no business forcing them onto other people”
COMMENT
Chris (re Kant): “a principle is only ethical if it is binding on every rational being.”
But a principle that is binding on every rational being may be ethical, yes?
It seems to me that the principle of accepting all other principles as legitimate for the person holding them must be at least in plurality for it to have any operational power. Indeed, perhaps the fact that this is not presently the case might be the root cause of our present troubles.
SEE DIFFERENTLY #FSCWdiff_1: Human Rights Still Standing
Chris: “the collapse of human rights”
COMMENT
Really? Human minds are not so constructed that they can create perfect societies. At present human rights are under siege, and some are presently comatose, but this assertion strikes me as an exaggeration.
Hey Frank,
Thanks for continuing this discussion - you bring up some important points.
"Chris (re Kant): “a principle is only ethical if it is binding on every rational being.”
But a principle that is binding on every rational being may be ethical, yes?"
If (and its a big 'if'!) there are certain principles that are binding for all forms of rationality, then the first principle survives in a narrower form than Kant intended. Kant felt that rationality was capable of eventually converging regardless of culture (he writes very eloquently on this point, actually). But after the twentieth century, it became clearer that rationality is a condition maintained within particular practices, and that different forms of enquire can therefore have different rationalities. (For more on this, Alasdair MacInytre's Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry hits this head on - although coming as it does from a position of defending traditional rationality it might not resonate with you, Frank!)
"It seems to me that the principle of accepting all other principles as legitimate for the person holding them must be at least in plurality for it to have any operational power. Indeed, perhaps the fact that this is not presently the case might be the root cause of our present troubles."
Aye, past, present, and future troubles, I'd venture. This failure to accept true diversity of thought while pretending a commitment to difference by picking out certain identity characteristics and championing them is at the heart of the contemporary epistemological crisis, since it associates conformity with diversity.
"Chris: “the collapse of human rights”
Really? Human minds are not so constructed that they can create perfect societies. At present human rights are under siege, and some are presently comatose, but this assertion strikes me as an exaggeration."
You are far from alone in thinking I am exaggerating. I suppose if you want to look at human rights just as a set of laws, then it's possible to say "okay, so we're ignoring this one, and we're bending this one to the point of breaking, but the rest all seem okay". But human rights, while enshrined in international law, are not just a rulebook. They are a principled way of providing protections for humans against state interference.
The moment we countenance an exception, we have voided the entire paradigm that gives human rights its meaning. We did this first by saying that 'terrorists don't get human rights protections and can be murdered and/or tortured without legal process' - that already voided human rights. Then we went further by saying 'if you don't consent to this particular medical treatment, your rights are voided'. Some went so far as to argue for withdrawal of healthcare for those who would not comply with a directive that was not even well-grounded in the available medical data! This went far beyond 'bending the rules', it shattered the entire framework.
The moment human rights are presented as conditional, the paradigm of human rights that descends from Kant's philosophy are voided. This is the situation we currently face. Furthermore, there's no way back to the post-World War II 'universal declaration of human rights' from this juncture, because both its promises and its premises are broken - conceptually and pragmatically - and in fact have been for some time. If we want to re-establish a new set of protections at this point it requires what I have called 'the Third Accord' (i.e. following the 'Rights of Man' and 'Human Rights').
I do not see my interpretation here as resting on an idealised and unattainable state - I believe the human rights regime, despite flaws and problems, was doing reasonably well up to the end of the twentieth century. In the same way that Harry Frankfurt argues that a cheater still reveals a respect for the rules (they know what they are but opt to break them), violations in the twentieth century were 'cheating' not 'voiding' human rights. It is the early twenty first century that has seen the rise of those who cannot even claim to 'cheat' the human rights accords, since we are told that they simply don't apply. We have abandoned these promises and substituted nothing but excuses.
Many thanks for the opportunity to elaborate on these points! Much appreciated.
Chris.