What is Hegel's critique of Kant in Reason as Testing Laws Is Hegel fair to Kant - Essay Example

What is Hegel's critique of Kant in "Reason as Testing Laws" Is Hegel fair to Kant Immanuel Kant's notion of practical reason has been profoundlycriticised by Hegel. For Kant practical reason is a part of a larger moral theory and therefore there remains a concept of the supreme principle of morality. For him this is a universally moral standard and it serves as a criterion for all humans equally. This notion of Kant has come under scathing criticism from academics and philosophers alike. For example utilitarian philosophers, like David Hume, are of the view that moral standards should comply with the concept of utility. Another more significant criticism has come from G.W.F Hegel, who in his critique of Kant, has questioned whether Kant's "categorical imperative" can actually be applied as a test or criterion for moral standards. Therefore he defines this concept as "A categorical imperative would be one which represented an action as objectively necessary in itself, without reference to any other purpose."1 For Hegel this idea is fruitless in many respects as he thinks that even immoral behaviour would qualify under the test given by Kant' and that there no formulation of a universal set of duties .Thus Hegel's criticism of Kant largely concerns Kant's so called formalism as has been discussed by Julian (1993). Before discussing Hegel's critique of Kant it would be useful to explain the ideas of Kant who expresses interest in the relationship between reason and experience. For Kant knowledge begins with experience in a rather chronological sense. (Julian 1993) For Kant empirical knowledge should be a "compound of that which we receive through impressions and that which our faculty of cognition supplies from itself". And that reason should become the tool that isolates knowledge from everything empirical from it. Kant terms this pure version of Knowledge as "a priori" (logically prior to sense experience) while empirical knowledge is labelled by him as posteriori. For him then if a priori knowledge is a result of cognitive ability then it is not a result of prior experience .Kant applies the Critical Method in his examination of knowledge, by first examining the "ordinary moral experience" and clarifies that he is not attempting to propose new moral principles but only explaining the current position. For Kant the categorical imperative is important mainly because it "determines the will independently of the sensuous motives of which ordinary moral deliberation is suspect."2 Therefore for him there is a marked difference between acting honestly for ones own sake and acting honestly with the belief that truth is a "universal requirement" the latter of which relates to categorical imperative.3 For Kant duty requires more than the universal form of action and he brings out these ideas and notions of the categorical imperative which Kant claims are "merely so many formulations of precisely the same law."Also for him the categorical imperative contains an end which functions as the single limiting condition of moral action. 4 Thus in his book the Formula of the End, Kant says "Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end" Kant goes on to clarify further that if humans are to be treated as "ends in themselves" then each individual should be allowed to choose their own ends at the same time. Furthermore he claims that misleading someone (by lying to them) for a particular Design is the way of using that other person as means rather than an end. Therefore the assertion not to treat humanity as a means but an end, i.e. when they choose to help you themselves. Hegel's criticism of Kant Hegel has made some interesting criticisms of the emptiness that seems to surround the Categorical Imperative when he says that "The criterion of law which Reason possesses within itself, fits every case equally well, and is thus in fact no criterion at all."5 However in the discussion further below I have actually evaluated the extent to which this assertion is right and to what extent the "categorical imperative" remains an empty notion, despite Hegel's claim. Further more in his critique of the formalism inherent in Kant's Ethics he remarks scathingly "I become immediately aware that such a principle would destroy itself if made into a law, for it would entail that there would be no deposits. He also criticises Kant's treatment of property rights in his work(Philosophy of Right) "Property, simply as such, does not contradict itself; it is an isolated determinateness, or is posited as merely self-identical. Non-property, the non-ownership of things, or a common ownership of goods is just as little self-contradictory." He seems to be further perturbed by Kant's formalism when he goes on to say, With respect to property there is the law: Property should be respected; for the opposite cannot be a universal law. That is right. But the institution of property is presupposed; if it is not, it is not respected; if it is; it is. If I do not presuppose the institution of property then theft contains no contradiction; it is a completely formal determination. This is the flaw with the Kantian-Fichtean principle, that it is simply formal. Cold hearted duty is the last undigested lump in the stomach.6(Philosophy of Right) Indeed Hegel's idea and justification of private property forms one of the core criticisms of Kant .For Hegel the idea of private property ownership is enshrined in the notions of individual freedom and he proposes a more positive treatment of such rights when criticising Kant.7 An evaluation of the Hegel's Criticism of Kant There are a number of defects with the analysis of Kant by Hegel as will be discussed below.8The essence of Hegel's criticism of Kant is "..if the definition of duty is taken to be the absence of contradiction,then no transition is possible to the specification of particular duties nor, if some such particular content for acting comes under consideration, is there any criterion in that principle for deciding whether it is or is not a duty. On the contrary, by this means any wrong or immoral line of conduct may be justified."(Hegel, Philosophy of Right) A closer inquiry into Hegel's claim that Kant's notion of duty can justify any immoral line of conduct does not seem to hold up at all.9 Take the example of the "The sincere Nazi (who) cannot justify killing Jews through the categorical imperative because he is not treating Jews as "ends in themselves." The Nazi's action could never be agreed to by the Jews themselves. Hence, the Nazi's maxim could never attain to universality. Hegel mistakenly takes the first formulation of the categorical imperative to be the only formulation; he does not see that the various formulations of the categorical imperative are really one law. Hegel thus does not grasp the true meaning of Kant's doctrine."10 Julian (1993) has pointed out that Hegel believes that Kant's idea of a duty does not produce an "immanent list of duties;". To be fair this is not one of Kant's objectives at all and it can be safely said that Hegel is missing the point of Kant's claim, because devising such a list is not possible at all due to people's differing notions of what morality or duties should be like.(Julian 1993) In this regard I would like to give the example of local conventions in certain areas. The notion of hospitality in Asian countries allows anyone to be welcome in another's house and there is hardly any concept of "unauthorized entrance" as in the case of western countries. How then it is possible to devise a universal list of duties Furthermore the concept of "general duty" that allows people to "choose their own ends only if compatible with the ends of others" can be interpreted as one of these notions. It can be said in Kant's defence that he never claims to supply the whole list of particular duties because for him we as humans already know our moral obligations. Yet he claims that the aim of his work to establish the "supreme principle of morality"In his theory of the categorical imperative Kant says that to allow ourselves to make moral distinctions we must accept the presence of a unifying principle which is not exactly possible we ourselves are confused as our standards of morality. Conclusion However in the end there is much to be said in the favour of property rights as freedoms as set out in Hegel's thesis. For him the requirements of duty and morality are not an insistence of a moral law or the "categorical imperative" but are found in the traditions of the pillars of the society, the focal institutions like the family, civil society, and the state. Therefore in my essay although I have set out some arguments in favour of Kant pertaining to Hegel's criticism of him, Hegel's thesis forms an interesting perspective pulling us away from Kant's rather liberal notions of a morality and duty References Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Pure Reason. Translated by Norman Kemp Smith. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003. Hegel, G. W. F. Phenomenology of Spirit. Translated by A. V. Miller. NewYork: Oxford University Press, 1977 Julian White (1993)Defence Of Immanuel Kant's Notion Of Practical Reason, available at http://newman.baruch.cuny.edu/digital/2000/honors/white_1993.htm Hegel, G.W.F. Philosophy of Right, translated by T. M. Knox, Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1942. Kant, I., Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals. Translated by H. J. Paton. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1964. Critique of Practical Reason. Translated by Thomas Kingshill Abbot. London: Longmans, Green and Co. 1909. Critique of Pure Reason, translated by F. Max Muller, 1966. Read More