The vision of society Immanuel Kant constructed allowed for the challenge and discussion of each individual’s differing goodness. More importantly, his society could only function with the use of the categorical imperative, or the “golden rule.” Kant believed that each person should act in a way they would like to universalize, and treat others as an end, and not as a means: “For all rational beings stand under the law that each of them should treat himself and all others never merely as means but always at the same time as an end in himself.” (Kant 39) By violating the categorical imperative, one would interfere with the autonomy and dignity of another. Kant believed every action should be judged on the action itself, and not on what it accomplished, writing, “It is not concerned with the matter of the action and its intended result, but rather with the form of the action and the principle from which it follows...” (Kant 26)
Tim Ferriss, a best-selling author and instructor on how to be an asshole, has made his “globs of money” by rejecting Kant’s philosophy. Ferriss preaches at the church of entitlement. He scams, he cheats, and his actions are justified by their end. Ferriss seems to be living his life with the belief that someone else will screw him over if he doesn’t do it first, whether it be an airport security personnel or the government. “His overarching interest in gaming the system at hand is mirrored in other Americans’ behavior. So is his emphasis on personal advantage over the public good, which would be undermined if every traveler did as he counseled.” (Bruni)
Kant wouldn’t know where to begin. Ferriss interferes with others’ autonomy by lying, he instructs others on how to do the same, and takes advantage of others’ belief that they live in a society where honestly and integrity are valued. If Ferriss’s actions were universalized, our system would fall apart. Everyone would be attempting to take short cuts and cheat, and our systems established on honesty wouldn’t be able to function. Though Ferriss’s actions accomplish whatever he is aiming for, without causing excessive harm to others, each action is intrinsically wrong. His actions take away one’s ability to make informed decisions, and ultimately he shortchanges all those around him.
I completely agree with what you have written, Emma. But I think there is one part of Ferris's belief system that Kant would agree with. Ferris would agree to universalize his (selfish, immoral) actions. He encourages everyone to act as he does. Who knows how long Ferris would still want this if the whole world actually took his advice, but that's what he says. Kant states that every individual should act in such a way that s/he would universalize his or her actions. They both agree on this aspect. That is some twisted logic, though... Generally, they disagree completely.
ReplyDelete(side point #1: Where are you, Calvin and Esten? This system only works if you all take the responsibility of posting and commenting.)
ReplyDeleteEmma, well done. Your clear dislike of, and distaste for, Ferriss' system of individualized action spurs your writing. I wonder, however, if we could push this another way? Is it possible that Ferriss is the only American who has "the courage to use his own understanding"? Is it possible that Ferriss is the only enlightened person we know? Would Kant argue that Ferriss, in using the public sphere to share a view he wishes was more universal - as Clara correctly points out, is helping to push our revolution forward? Can we see becoming more "Ferriss-like" as a population as a general goal for our ever improving humanity?
just a thought.....
Nice Emma! Obviously Kant and Ferris are pretty easy to differentiate from one another, but I thought you made an interesting point. You mentioned how Ferris justifies his actions by saying it is always better to be the giver instead of the receiver of fowl intentions. This reminds me of what Kant said about armies and their effect on the human psyche. As long as there are armies their can never be peace because the prospect of war is ever present. It seems to me the only way to initiate peace and fair relation is to rid the world of all hostility in one fell swoop.
ReplyDelete^
Delete(And this is Esten)
Esten, are you saying that Ferris, by acting how he does, is effectively providing the possibility for a continuation of a state of war? Is he figuratively (in Kant's words) employing a standing army? If so, it's a smart move, because if forces everyone else to remain in a state of war, where Ferris is the giver of foul intentions (and therefore has the upper hand).
DeleteBut if everyone committed to being in a state of war as thoroughly as Ferris obviously does, wouldn't he be less successful? He is a hit because he is an extreme. Ferris's choices may reflect what everyone else in a capitalistic society tries to do (take care of their own interests), but not everyone is as good at this as Ferris. Should it really be a general goal of humanity to look out for your own self interests that much? I don't see how that would improve humanity. That reasoning seems like the opposite of what Kant argues for (categorical imperative). Then again, maybe our system where it's impossible for us all to be successful without- as Esten said- "stepping on a few toes" is what's faulty rather than any one individual who manages to use that system to their advantage.
ReplyDeleteYes Clara, that seems to be a big part of the problem with Ferris's ideals and in many ways the world today. The concept of man's right wealth and prosperity with little to no bounds leads to a system which encourages a "survival of the fittest". It's also evident that those who are willing to exercise the most extreme methods often receive the greatest reward.
ReplyDelete
Delete^
Esten