69 million page views

Immanuel Kant vs. Israel , reply to Peter Herz's reply

Reader comment on item: Immanuel Kant vs. Israel
in response to reader comment: Don't be too hard on Kant

Submitted by Morry Markovitz (United States), Dec 20, 2010 at 02:21

I don't recall ever coming across a statement by Kant about the relative pacificity of free republics, but I take your word for it and thank you for that information, as well as several other interesting parts of your comment. I am not a Kant scholar, but have merely read some of his work -- long ago -- and have read several excerpts and commentaries on his work, favorable and critical.

As for the route from "the empirical is to the ethical ought," that is one of the supposedly unresolved problems of philosophy. However, I believe it was resolved during the 20th century. I read a short paper once which was written by the modern philosopher Ayn Rand, titled I believe "Introduction to Objectivist Ethics." It was an eye-opener, a brilliant leap to an unbelievably simple solution to this problem. I do not have a copy of that little treatise, nor do I know where you might find one, but it is a gem if you can find it. I do remember clearly the insight to the root of the solution which no previous philosopher had ever had, or if one did, he never mentioned it or followed through its logic. I can give you my very short summary of the essence, or what I remember of it:

Ethics follows from one's moral code. Morality tries to answer the question "What is good or right, and what is evil or wrong?" Once a philosopher or an individual decides upon a moral code (regardless of his reason for so doing), the next logical question to ask is "Well, then, given the answer to the above question which my moral code supplies, what should I do about it?" In other words, "ethics" is the guide to ACTIONS or BEHAVIORS which are implied by a code of morality. Ethics tells you how to act, given your moral code -- translating its content into a basis for making decisions about your actions.

Well, according to the little treatise mentioned above, no philosopher in all history had ever asked the very first logical question one needs to ask in order to come up with a proper/correct moral code. The above question -- "What is the good or right, and what is the bad or wrong?" -- is indeed where virtually every philosopher has begun his investigation into morality (and hence ethics, which follows from morality). Thus, every philosopher in human history has begun in the middle, not at the root of the problem, which is why none ever was able to decisively derive a provably correct morality for man, the being who possesses a conceptual consciousness and the ability to reason. According to that little treatise, the correct starting point when pursuing the question of a proper moral code is: "Does man in fact NEED a moral code in the first place, and if so, then WHY does he need one????"

Beyond this point I think I do remember the logical progression with reasonable accuracy, but not perfect accuracy. So I think it would be best not to rely on my fallible memory, but to go to the source if you are interested to do so by the foregoing. The answer will be worth the effort, in my opinion, because I could find no flaw in the reasoning which then followed, once the reasoning was begun at the proper starting point. Since I've already made it obvious that the connection from "is" to "ought" is successfully made, it should be obvious that the answer to the first part of the "primary" question is "yes" -- ie, man does indeed require a moral code. As for the "why," in the briefest nutshell it's that man simply cannot survive absent a moral code. I am giving you only the conclusions here, not their logical derivations which you will find in the above-mentioned article/paper/mini-treatise, if you can locate a copy. In summary, the concept of "values" applies only to living things, and since the basic alternative in the universe for living things is to remain living or to revert to strictly the inanimate matter they are composed of. IE, life is the only thing that makes choices possible AND NECESSARY. Morality is what defines positive and negative values, and its standard then must be the continued life of the species for whom the morality is to apply. For a plant, sunlight and water are values and to seek them is the good. A plant is automatically "moral" then, by its very nature. It is unable to make a wrong choice, it is of such a nature that its actions are entirely pre-programmed with the intent of benefiting its survival and flourishing. An animal at the perceptual level has a somewhat different implicit moral code, because it is a different type of living entity with different requirements for its life to continue rather than revert to inanimate matter for which the very idea of a moral code is preposterous. Animals, however, have their "moral code" pretty much built in as well, via their reflexes and instinctual behavior. In both cases -- as in the next case too, man -- the answer to the "why" of the need for a moral code is "in order to remain what you are -- it is the thing you need to prevent yourself from reverting back to inanimate chemicals which obviously can have no interest in the relative value of certain actions to themselves. It is only once matter is arranged in a form that takes on life that the alternative of then remaining alive or reverting back to non-life arises, and it is only the arising of this alternative which gives rise to the concepts of "good" or "bad." These do not apply to inanimate, senseless, indestructible matter, which can be neither created nor destroyed. But life can cease to exist. Depending on the nature of the life form under discussion, certain specific requirements must be met in order for life to persist, and there are other events or actions or situations or behaviors which are inimical to the continued existence of its life, or which will directly cause its life to depart from the universe, ie to cease to exist, leaving only the inanimate matter. Whether you attribute the existence of life to religious sources or scientific ones, makes no difference to the validity of this statement. The fact is empirically obvious, ontologically provable, that life can exist, and it can cease to exist. In any event, from the foregoing, certain types of actions or behaviors are NECESSARY for all forms of life to engage in if they are to avoid the cessation of their life, the destruction or obliteration of it, the cessation of their existence. Plants are entirely programmed to take such actions -- whether by God or because the only plants which survived were the ones who were imbued with the "right" programming for action by their very nature (eg, extend roots, grow toward the sun, etc.). Animals are also programmed, but not as thoroughly. What is "right" and "wrong" for a living thing to do, depends on its nature and what its nature AS A LIVING ENTITY requires in order to stay living -- because the alternative makes no sense since as inanimate matter alone, there is no need for such a decision, and thus no need for a distinction between "good" and "bad" or between "right" and "wrong" behaviors. It is only the existence of LIFE that gives rise for a need to discriminate between "right" and "wrong" behaviors -- for non-life there is no right vs. wrong. What is "right" for a living being is thus the answer to "what need I do to avoid going out of existence?" and what is "wrong" would be the answer to "what actions would take me out of existence, ie end my life, or move me toward that state?" In short, the very need for a moral code arises from the existence of living beings, and is required IF THEY WISH TO REMAIN LIVING BEINGS. If your goal is not life, then you do not need a moral code. If your goal is to remain alive, then you DO need a moral code and an ethics.

So. . . morality consists in the furtherance of life, and ethics consists in defining the actions necessary to accomplish that goal. These required actions depend on the nature of the living being, what its needs and requirements are, in specific, in order to remain alive. I've mentioned plants and animals, using "animal" loosely. You might consider fish separately if you want to get very detailed, but the above would still apply. When we come to man, the same "first principle" of ethics applies: that the types of actions necessary for a living being of man's nature to survive, are those actions which he must observe if his goal is to persist alive as a man. Whatever actions will destroy his life, or reduce him to animal status or to vegetable status, or to mineral (complete death) status, are actions he SHOULD NOT take -- given that his choice is to live according to his nature as a member of homo sapiens.

In short, a living entity's NATURE determines what actions it must take to survive. Thus, what it IS, determines what it OUGHT to do -- unless its goal is death, a return to the inanimate state of simple chemicals which are no longer part of a living being.

Thus, a proper ethics -- a code of "right" behavior -- can be derived from the NATURE of the being for whom the ethics is being derived, and in fact MUST be derived from its nature IF that being chooses to remain alive. You and I are men, of the human species. As such we have certain common characteristics, basic ones, and as such there are certain basic choices which we can clearly deduce are fatal to us, and others which are beneficial to us, certain very broad general principles. Is it good to think before you act? Is it good to avoid thinking when you don't feel like it even if there is an emergency threatening? Is it good to produce food for your self? Is it good to just lie and wait for food to drop into your mouth by itself? Is it good to be productive? Etc etc. You can get an idea how this train of thought can progress from simple answers to more sophisticated ones.

I don't know how accurately the above portrays the essence of what it attempts to summarize. Furthermore, it's late and I'm tired as I write, and I apologize for being wordy and probably repetitive -- it's hours past my bedtime. So again I suggest you consult the original source which at minimum will be more rigorous than the above, and probably much more clearly written. I would like to relate one final personal observation:

As you know, many people dismiss philosophy as "words, just words," or as an exercise in sophistry, or in unprovable opinions, or as worthless verbiage. While I emphatically disagree with this view, I can understand why it is so common, and I think there are ample examples in philosophy of the type of thinking or writing or arguing which offer a pretext for this reaction or evaluation. However, when I read the above-mentioned piece, I felt as if I were reading the thoughts of a very mathematically precise mind. No assumptions were left implicit, but all were explicitly defined and the objections to them identified and refuted with a rigor usually not found outside scientific or mathematical journals. It induced me to read another by the same author which was titled "Introduction to the Objectivist Epistemology." As you also undoubtedly are aware, a complete philosophical system begins with a Metaphysics, and then adds an Epistemology, then come Morality & Ethics, and then further "specialized" sub-branches such as Esthetics, Politics, Economics, etc. But a consistent philosophical system must start with a Metaphysics and an Epistemology, as foundations upon which the rest depends. I was probably even more intrigued by the epistemological "introduction" than the ethics one. It also resolves certain unresolved problems in the history of philosophy. For one, it validates sensory data -- essentially refuting Kant's and others' conclusions that sensory data is unreliable. For another, it solves the problem of going from the general to the particular, ie of what the "essence" of a concept consists in, and shows why revisions in existing concepts are not necessarily refutations of them. (This entails the principle that ALL knowledge is contextual. Not "relative" but CONTEXTUAL. It's my own opinion that failure to identify this distinction is what has led to a great deal of erroneous relativism in areas of philosophy, especially modern philosophy.)

Again, thanks for imparting some knowledge to me. I hope the above is something you'll find worthwhile. From what you wrote, I think you will. Even if you end up disagreeing with much of it, in my opinion there are genuinely SIGNIFICANT contributions to philosophy, IMPORTANT ones, summarized in the two papers mentioned above. If you don't agree 100% that several of the "unsolvable" problems of philosophy are conclusively resolved in the above, for the first time in human history, then I think you will likely glimpse the possibility that there does very possibly exist a definitive resolution, a provable one, in each case, or at the very least that there is an interesting new perspective, or avenue of approach to solving them.

Submitting....

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

<< Previous Comment      Next Comment >>

Reader comments (113) on this item

Title Commenter Date Thread
1"Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe" (OSCE) 57 countries) [386 words]RobertSep 30, 2022 11:32286982
1Cooperation by Coercion - Following When True Leadership is Usurped for Reasons of Ambitions of Empire [84 words]M ToveyOct 1, 2022 16:31286982
1New World Order and the United Nations. [382 words]RobertSep 30, 2022 07:45286975
Current American Dollar Currency Demonstrates Changes in American Governance from Constitutionalist to Bureaucratic Authoritarian [321 words]M ToveySep 30, 2022 15:53286975
1Let Muslims disambiguate among their subdivisions [169 words]PrashantApr 2, 2021 14:32265259
2Prashant! What is Judaism and Christianity? [87 words]RobertSep 29, 2022 15:09265259
Judeo-Christianity in A More Basic Covenant Testament [210 words]M ToveySep 29, 2022 21:36265259
1My view of Judaism and Christianity (and Islam) [199 words]PrashantSep 30, 2022 13:48265259
5It's simple: Israel used to be the land of kibbutzes and socialism [43 words]Base MavenSep 26, 2010 04:16178702
1religión e historia [242 words]luciano tantoSep 13, 2010 10:11178196
1Reminds me of this quote, from Solzhenitsyn... [225 words]The Sanity InspectorSep 10, 2010 12:16178002
1Kant...Shmant! [274 words]RoqueSep 2, 2010 00:29177577
Paradigm Shifts [178 words]RobertAug 31, 2010 19:00177514
Wrong [11 words]Abu NudnikOct 5, 2010 14:03177514
1Re: Paradigm shift [82 words]Robert VillegasOct 5, 2010 19:04177514
3Kant? A puppet of the Jesuit Order [2141 words]alessandro alboreAug 31, 2010 15:06177508
coo-coo, coo-coo, coo-coo, coo-coo [8 words]Abu NudnikOct 5, 2010 13:58177508
Aged 55, Count Wladimir Ledochowski? [15 words]DDec 24, 2021 13:39177508
2The Left, David, and Goliath. [189 words]LynnAug 30, 2010 09:49177456
IV Reich is behind us, TRUE Jews, true gentiles [251 words]alessandro alboreAug 29, 2010 19:01177434
the GOST Nation [2006 words]alessandro alboreAug 29, 2010 07:36177417
Open your eyes, everybody [908 words]alessandro alboreAug 29, 2010 07:06177415
Here is a similar assessment. [23 words]ITZIGAug 29, 2010 04:15177414
Kant vs Israel [97 words]Amo FuchsAug 27, 2010 04:32177347
Location, Location, Location [52 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
CalebAug 25, 2010 14:06177268
Utopia is nowhere! On Mr. Pipes´ addendum dated August 17 concerning the Left. [213 words]Isaac HaskiyaAug 25, 2010 12:06177265
1I do agree [54 words]VladimirAug 25, 2010 10:12177262
5Anti-Israel polemics are rooting for the UN as the new emerging power structure as opposed to nation states. [428 words]TarnowAug 24, 2010 09:44177197
I dissent from Hazony's view [102 words]Peter HerzAug 23, 2010 22:01177173
over-sophistication [119 words]yuval Brandstetter MDAug 23, 2010 10:46177143
American means freedom from or for Religion [41 words]RONAug 24, 2010 00:23177143
1This analysis is true in the case of left thinkers and intellectuals [42 words]Yael F.Aug 22, 2010 06:52177085
3Oversophistication. [60 words]Menchem ChazanAug 21, 2010 15:03177049
Oversimplification [4 words]PenstarrsAug 26, 2010 21:19177049
8The flaw in Hazony's thesis [400 words]Alex SafianAug 21, 2010 12:15177045
1"Immanuel Kant vs. Israel" [203 words]norine krasnogorAug 20, 2010 22:47177034
2KANT VS. ISRAEL [281 words]RafiAug 20, 2010 16:54177024
Paradigm shift not worth a dime [137 words]BernieAug 19, 2010 17:05176987
Cosmopolis by Stephen Toulmin [19 words]Hillel S.Aug 19, 2010 16:41176986
1putting Kuhn and Kant in some context [374 words]mythAug 19, 2010 09:54176971
6Immanuel Kant vs. Israel [1785 words]Morry MarkovitzAug 19, 2010 01:49176950
Immanuel Kant vs. Israel [40 words]Morry MarkovitzAug 22, 2010 03:40176950
1some recent facts about the national idea [189 words]mythAug 22, 2010 06:28176950
Kant vs Israel [142 words]Morry MarkovitzAug 22, 2010 23:05176950
Kant vs Israel [489 words]Morry MarkovitzAug 22, 2010 23:33176950
my response to "some recent facts about the national idea" [183 words]Morry MarkovitzAug 24, 2010 00:17176950
almost contentless [90 words]mythAug 24, 2010 12:29176950
4Science, facts, truth [391 words]MorryAug 26, 2010 19:19176950
4Science, facts, truth #2 [1866 words]MorryAug 26, 2010 19:24176950
"myth" is right: fact and truth are not the same [79 words]Abu NudnikOct 5, 2010 14:23176950
Don't be too hard on Kant [276 words]Peter HerzDec 18, 2010 22:02176950
Immanuel Kant vs. Israel , reply to Peter Herz's reply [2267 words]Morry MarkovitzDec 20, 2010 02:21176950
Rejoinder to a pecksniffian [133 words]Honoring TeachersJun 7, 2011 02:41176950
Hatred of Israel [228 words]Ilbert PhillipsAug 19, 2010 00:43176947
don't accept the hazony thesis [67 words]paulAug 18, 2010 15:44176910
1Paradigm here, paradigm there, paradigm everywhere. [235 words]Isaac HaskiyaAug 18, 2010 14:03176901
4Fort Apache, The Middle East. [472 words]Cherif El-AyoutyAug 18, 2010 05:27176884
8Fort Europe [211 words]Bert TateAug 21, 2010 05:04176884
It´s not shifting deelings towards the national state, but new realities [152 words]Lars NielsenAug 18, 2010 05:10176882
3Israel a victim of the paradigm shift dieses [150 words]Prakash KhatiwalaAug 18, 2010 01:31176878
12Yoram Hazony's thesis is probably not correct [333 words]RajeevAug 17, 2010 23:55176877
Great Minds Think Alike [103 words]Stuart FaginAug 17, 2010 23:53176876
Jew hatred to be precise [78 words]Anne JulienneAug 18, 2010 16:55176876
Now I understand [38 words]John W. McGinleyAug 17, 2010 22:33176873
A victim of our own success [98 words]Shepard BarbashAug 17, 2010 22:08176870
What's the difference? [170 words]Yoel LernerAug 17, 2010 21:39176868
2Kant's Revolution [285 words]J KourlasAug 17, 2010 21:28176867
Revolution under Kant and under Islam [229 words]Anne JulienneAug 18, 2010 17:42176867
3Kant as "the founder of the counter-Enlightenment" in the light of his essay "What is Enlightement" [444 words]IanusAug 19, 2010 16:16176867
Kant's not so universal universalism [348 words]Elliott A GreenAug 20, 2010 09:03176867
Comment on Green's Critique of Kant [167 words]J KourlasAug 21, 2010 21:23176867
Read the book [41 words]J KourlasAug 21, 2010 22:02176867
3Reading Kant's Perpetual Peace [418 words]J KourlasAug 22, 2010 09:18176867
response about Kant's Judeophobia [65 words]Elliott A GreenAug 22, 2010 17:48176867
1Doubts as "dogmatic slumber" [123 words]IanusAug 22, 2010 18:05176867
1Kant's "single ruler" paradigm [336 words]Anne JulienneAug 22, 2010 21:45176867
4Death to Israel Isn't a Theory [316 words]HistoryscoperAug 17, 2010 21:22176866
3Mohammed vs. Israel , not Kant ! [121 words]IanusAug 18, 2010 18:38176866
3Yoram Hazony is not so smart [233 words]yonatan silvermanAug 17, 2010 21:21176865
Yonatan silverman on Yoram Hazony [69 words]efraim CarlsenMar 4, 2013 15:12176865
Myopic Paradigm [140 words]Marilyn AbramovitzAug 17, 2010 20:30176861
Explanation [14 words]DennisWojciakAug 17, 2010 19:57176857
3Israel vs. Kant - Following the True Paradigm - Israel is Not Immune - But Will Recover [816 words]M. ToveyAug 17, 2010 19:33176854
If the truth be known ... [25 words]Anne JulienneAug 17, 2010 20:17176854
one thing always seems left out [78 words]NoraAug 18, 2010 04:49176854
3One thing is sure [201 words]Solomon TaraganoAug 18, 2010 11:33176854
Shape Shifting Paradigms Always Leave Out One Thing - Truth [409 words]M. ToveyAug 18, 2010 17:36176854
Perpetual Peace in Human Terms Cannot Compare to the Peace That Passes All 'Human' Understanding. [27 words]M. ToveyAug 18, 2010 18:09176854
1One Thing Even More Sure [867 words]M. ToveyAug 23, 2010 12:29176854
Irony - The More Things Seem to Change- the More They Seem the Same [168 words]M ToveyMar 31, 2021 20:01176854
Let us double check Biden's executive orders. [55 words]PrashantApr 1, 2021 19:15176854
Exectuve Decisions - Whose Orders Should Be Observed - The Holy or Unholy [225 words]M ToveyApr 4, 2021 15:49176854
New 'Paradigm': You've Got to Be Kidding! [448 words]JoeAug 17, 2010 18:57176851
Ironic [78 words]Abu NudnikAug 17, 2010 18:38176850
4But something central is Overlooked [687 words]Ron ThompsonAug 17, 2010 18:27176849
1the new pardigm [469 words]gingersnapAug 17, 2010 20:34176849
1The new paradigm doesn't explain enough [221 words]Erich WiegerAug 17, 2010 18:12176847
1Why the anti-Israel hostility? [90 words]TarnowAug 17, 2010 17:29176845
1Kant and Kuhn misunderstood [145 words]Anne JulienneAug 17, 2010 17:26176844
Can't Use Kant to Describe Israel's Dilemma with the World Governments [388 words]M. ToveyAug 19, 2010 18:56176844
Nation states don't need supra-national entities to control themselves [44 words]Abu NudnikOct 5, 2010 14:15176844
What's Holding Us Back? [119 words]Kim BruceAug 17, 2010 17:20176843
Kant's antisemitism [75 words]Paul Lawrence RoseAug 17, 2010 17:06176842
2Kant's antisemitism ? [192 words]IanusAug 18, 2010 15:41176842
Kant and German Antisemitism [144 words]PLRoseAug 27, 2010 21:04176842
3Is criticizing Judaism or Jews ipso facto anti-Semitism ? [429 words]IanusAug 30, 2010 10:31176842
1DEJA VU in 2010.... how frightening [178 words]saraAug 30, 2010 17:15176842
Interesting point of view [71 words]Mike ShapiroAug 17, 2010 17:06176841
2Kant and Islam [105 words]Anne JulienneAug 17, 2010 19:46176841
4Avraham Burg - don't waste your proverbial ink on him. [198 words]Yehuda, Ottawa, CanadaAug 17, 2010 17:00176840
1burg [60 words]solemnmanAug 18, 2010 05:15176840
1Burg - utter scum [86 words]EliyahuAug 23, 2010 04:57176840
burg has no principles [63 words]EliyahuAug 23, 2010 05:01176840

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2024 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)