How Does Kant Define Freedom - Assignment Example

Teacher Final Exam Spring Both Kant and Libertarians claim that we must, above all, respect the freedom of others. How do Libertarians define freedom? How does Kant define freedom? Do Kant and Libertarians share the same view of the relation between autonomy, reason, and humanity? Would Kant consider Libertarians free? Why or why not? Libertarians define freedom in absolute terms that freedom by itself is the goal. They pursue to become autonomous that would allow them to have an absolute freedom of choice. They reject authority and any form of social control or regulation. The libertarians preference towards absolute freedom extends to other spheres of life such as having an economic system that is free for all. They are partial towards private ownership and rejects any form of socialism. Kant on the other hand define freedom in terms of autonomy or the freedom to deliberate before making a choice. Kant’s basis of freedom is that the individual is free from the constraints that would disallow him to make a sound reflection before making a choice that would lead him to become a virtuous man. Kant also presupposes that freedom allows man to develop his faculties fully to make him a virtuous man. In his work Metaphysics of Morals, Kant illustrated the case of a thief where he has to take from others and became less of the virtuous man because he his circumstances induces him to steal. Having said these, Kant and libertarians have different view on autonomy, reason. Autonomy for Kant is the individual’s capacity to reflect on his own while libertarians perceive autonomy as a freedom to make choices. Kant also believe that reason must be developed to make a virtuous man. Libertarians advocate that man should have the unimpeded capacity to reason regardless of what he believes. Both Kant and libertarians share the same ideal about humanity which is to uphold it through various mechanisms. Kant would consider libertarians to be free because of their quest to become unrestrained from any form of bondage or social control. 2.) For Mill, why is the free and full development of human faculties important? How is this related to choice, the development of selfhood, and utilitarian principles? How is this different from Bentham’s Utilitarianism? Now consider Aristotle’s virtue ethics. What are the foundational principles of Aristotle’s theory? How are reason and desire related to human development? Based on your answers, where do you think Mill and Aristotle would agree? Where do you think they would disagree? For Mill, the free and full development of human faculties important is important because it is one of the elements of developing the well-being of a person that would make him useful to society. Man’s fully developed faculties would make him elect better choices that would promote society’s “greatest happiness” (Mill 210). Mill greatest happiness theory only expanded Bentham’s theory of the same except that Mill expanded the application of the theory such as making utilitarianism a necessity in protecting human liberty. Mill and Bentham’s utilitarianism differs tremendously from Aristotle’s virtue ethics. Aristotle’s virtue ethics is based on the desire to be virtuous and this desire to be virtuous should reflect in the acts of the man regardless of the consequences. For Aristotle, reason should be developed to make man virtuous and fully developed. Having said these, I think Mill and Aristotle would disagree with each other. It is because Mill will always have a purpose in whatever that man should do which is to promote society’s greatest happiness. Mill is an advocate of social utility which could even mean sacrificing the minority for the greater good. Aristotle on the other hand does not care about the purpose of man or society’s action because for him, it is immaterial for man’s desire to become a good person. In a way, Aristotle may even be disdainful of utilitarianism because it would allow man to do less than good things in its pursuit to promote the greater happiness. 3.) Rawls makes a distinction between entitlement and moral desert. Explain this distinction. What sorts of things are we entitled to, what sorts of things do we deserve, and how can we tell the difference? Now consider Aristotle’s view of honors and equality. How does Aristotle think we should distribute goods and honors? Would Aristotle make a distinction between entitlement and moral desert? Why or why not? Entitlement and moral desert are two Rawl’s theory of justice. For entitlement, it is based on merit where Rawl posits that we only get what is just for us to get. For example, if we study hard enough, it is only just that we get good grades. Desert on the other hand are things that are out of our control. For example, our inherent intelligence, our genetic make-up or how we look are not of our own making and this becomes a basis of desert. The difference between entitlement and moral desert is that in entitlement, we get what we deserve based on the effort we exerted that makes getting just. In moral desert, we have or not have the things or circumstances based on givens which we have no control. Rawl’s entitlement and moral desert differ much from Aristotle’s honors and equality. Aristotle, reject honor as a source of happiness because it should not be pursued for its own sake and is not a measure of an individual’s worth and that we are all have equal chance towards happiness. Compared to Rawl’s entitlement, Rawl would believe that an individual is deserving of honor if one works to have recognition which Aristotle rejects and we are not all equal in getting what we deserve. Consistent to this, Aristotle thought that honor should be left to the individual if he or she desire it unlike Rawl’s theory that it would follow if one will work to have a recognition. In short, Rawl’s distribution of honor and goods depends on how much an individual would exert to pursue in order to have them while Aristotle rejects distribution of honors and that goods must be distributed according to one’s needs. 4.) Why do Libertarians support the free market? What are the requirements for the just possession and exchange of property? Now consider Mill’s account of Utilitarianism. What are the key elements of Mill’s account? Do you think Mill would support the free market in every case? Why or why not? Are Mill’s views on selfhood ultimately compatible with libertarian views? Libertarians support the free market because it is consistent with their principles of promoting freedom of choice and absolute autonomy. Free market is the economic system that reflects the values of libertarians. In this kind of economic system, just possession and exchange of properties as well as goods are unfettered by government or state regulations. Mill account of utilitarianism does not necessarily contradicts with libertarianism’s idea of the market for as long as such economic system and exchange of goods promote greater good and that it does not threaten freedom and justice. In Mill’s account of Utilitarianism, he disagreed with the unfettered nature of the market and instead prescribed state intervention in the economy consistent with the principle of social utility of promoting the greatest good of society. So this answers the question that Mill does not support free market in every case because some feature of free market is harmful to the greater good of society. For example, free market pursuit of profit that would tantamount to hoarding of goods so that the price would increase would be profitable to businessmen but harmful to society. Or, Mill would support the prohibition or regulation of narcotics because it could harm people. In this account, Mill would disagree with free market. Mills view on self-hood will eventually contradict with libertarian views because for Mill, the development of self must have a social utility and that is to promote greater good and to protect society. Libertarian views do not have a purpose and it could be good or bad for as long people are free. 5.) Explain Kant’s distinction between autonomy and heteronomy. Now consider Aristotle’s account of human excellence. What is the relation between human excellence, reason, desire, and virtue? What is the relation between human excellence and freedom? Would Kant agree with Aristotle’s views on freedom? Why or why not. The distinction between Kant’s autonomy and heteronomy is that autonomy meant the freedom to reflect before acting so that such act is done in a deliberate way. For example, an individual would first reflect to evaluate before taking a certain course of action. Heteronomy on the other is acting in a way that is not consistent reason as it was deprived of reflection before such course of action is done. Moral excellence is consistent with Aristotle’s virtue ethics which should be the objective of every person. And such moral excellence can only by achieved by reason which is the form of ultimate good and happiness. He rejected desire as a way to achieve happiness. Human excellence is the full development of our faculty while freedom is the autonomy to reflect doing a certain thing. Consistent to this, Kant would not disagree with Aristotle’s views on freedom because it is consistent with Aristotle’s perspective on freedom that it should have a social purpose of utility that serves society (i.e. moral excellence, full development of faculties). What concerns Kant is that if such view of freedom will harm society such as libertarianism point of view of unfettered freedom that would ultimately harm society because selfish ends might prevail. Aristotle’s concept of freedom is ideal for society and this is the reason why Kant will not disagree with it. Works Cited "Immanuel Kant, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals (1785)." Justice with Michael Sandel. Web. 9 May 2015. Mill, J.S., The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill. Gen. Ed. John M. Robson. 33 vols. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1963-91 pg. 210 Sandel, M., "J.S. Mill, Utilitarianism (1863)." Justice with Michael Sandel. Accessed January 6, 2015. http://www.justiceharvard.org/resources/j-s-mill-utilitarianism-1863/. Scarre, Geoffrey. Utilitarianism. London: Routledge, 2002. Print. "The Internet Classics Archive | Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle." The Internet Classics Archive | Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle. Web. 9 May 2015. Read More