PAPER TOPIC #2

For Monday, October 22nd, please write a 4-5 page paper that addresses the following questions: In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." What is the "pursuit of happiness" and how should society be structured in order to maximize this goal? What is your obligation to the ensuring the happiness of anyone else? Your paper MUST CITE: Plato, Kant, and at least one of Locke, Hobbes, Rawls, Rousseau (and by cite, we mean quote!) This paper is due on paper, in your folders, in class.

homework for Tuesday

For tomorrow (Tuesday) please read Rawls, The Issue of Overlapping Consensus, to page 10.

Group 2: Kant-Ferriss

 Immanuel Kant would use Tim Ferriss as a prime example of how an individual should not behave in society. Ferriss' “overarching interest in gaming the system” directly violates Kant's categorical imperative, which states, “maxims must be chosen as if they were to hold as universal laws of nature.” If Ferriss' selfish and deceiving ways were the universal norm, there would be no progression towards enlightenment, for all individuals would be shaping their beliefs on false pretenses. For example, Ferriss would not want all travelers to take his advice of putting a pistol in their luggage, for then he would have no advantage. Kant would say that Ferriss' actions relate to the hypothetical imperative, for Ferris knows from experience that his strategy works in “diminishing or altogether eliminating the possibility” of losing luggage.

Kant encourages the sharing of ideas, and says that for enlightenment, “all that is needed is freedom,” of public knowledge, and the courage to spread personal beliefs in order to help others reach an enlightened state. However, he would say that Ferris is using his freedom in the wrong way. Kant says that “a man of learning may through his writings address a public in the truest sense of the word, he may indeed argue without harming the affairs in which he is employed.” While Ferris is not literally employed by the TSA, he is a workering member of a greater community, and by publicly advocating dishonesty, he is harming his “employer,” his colleagues and himself.

Furthermore, In Kant's system, a person is never to be treated as a means, but always as an end. Ferriss sees organizations and people as a means by which to gain an unfair and exclusive advantage. To Kant, “good action consists in mental disposition, not consequences.” Ferriss does not suffer any apparent consequences from his actions, but his mental disposition is selfish and corrupt, so his actions are bad. Ferriss is not unique is his actions. “Selfishness run amok is a national disease,” and Kant would say that this is due in part to immaturity and laziness. He would say to Ferriss and his converts, “have courage to use your own understanding!”

Kant vs Ferriss

       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.              

Group 1 Oct. 4

Immanuel Kant and Timothy Ferriss agree on one major concept, that every individual lives with a sense of freedom.  To both, freedom is an inherent quality that every man and woman is graced with at birth.  The two differ, however, in their beliefs on how that inherent freedom is expressed.  There are two basic ways an individual can act out his/her freedom, the first being in a moral way, and the other in an immoral way.  In Kantian terminology, this choice between acting morally or immorally is found manifest in Kant’s idea of the categorical imperative, or in other words, A Priori.  If every individual of Kant’s ideal state lives in moral A Priori, Kant believes the state can function in a status of near perfection.

In contrast to moral A Priori is its inverse, immoral A Priori.  To Kant, what constitutes as immoral is any individual acting in a way that takes away from the granted autonomy and dignity of every citizen.  And to make sure this ideal is respected, Kant believes it is the responsibility of every individual and of the state “to stop anyone forcibly hindering others from working as best they can to define and promote their salvation” (What is Enlightenment 58). 

Kant’s beliefs make it easy to see the vast difference between him and the ideals held by Ferriss.  Contrary to Kant, Ferriss believes that “personal advantage over the public good” (Individualism in Overdrive) is how every individual is entitled to act.  A prime example showed in the article is his idea to bring unloaded firearms in your luggage, so that you won’t have to worry about losing it.  The outcome of this is that “It’s extra work and fretting for them (security administration) but, hey, you get peace of mind. Isn’t that what counts?” (Individualism in Overdrive).   

In an idealistic, prefect state, Kant believes there must be peace between citizens. What this entails is mutual respect between citizens, but more than just that the respect to the laws of conduct within the state.  Those being, “Act always according to that maxim whose universality as a law you can at the same time will” (Metaphysics of Morals 437), and, “Act according to maxims which can at the same time have for their object themselves as universal laws of nature.  In this way there is provided the formula for an absolutely good will” (Metaphysics of Morals 437).  If every citizen acts under these rules than the state will be successful, but if individuals such as Timothy Ferriss become part of the state then that success will be no more, for there will be an impediment on the other citizens.  That being that their right to autonomy and dignity would not be respected.  Kant would despise Ferris as part of any society because of the ideals and actions he embodies.

   

also...

If you are looking for more explanation of the a priori or the nature of empirical reason, please check dropbox for Kant's Introduction to the Critique of Pure Reason. It's not too long, but it might help you to understand a bit more of what we're talking about here.

Next blog assignment and homework for Friday

For Friday, one member of each group needs to respond to the following question. All members of the group (writer and commenters) need to read the article in the attached link. What would Kant think about Ferris or this philosophy of life? Be specific. Quote the readings. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/17/opinion/bruni-individualism-in-overdrive.html?hp For Friday, please read Kant's Perpetual Peace (in dropbox).