In many of my posts now I have been stating that we live in an age of unreason, and that this was an innovation of the Enlightenment. Nearly all of the recent posts reflect this theme but these recent posts have been quite explicit:
Yes, no wonder your blog is about a search for sense and sensibility. Your comment was based on nonsense. The Enlightenment and irrationalism are two separate movements that must not be conflated with each other. Irrationalism resulted from an offshoot of Kantianism, and although Kant had written on the Enlightenment, he hadn’t been the only Enlightenment thinker. The Enlightenment on the contrary, had emphasised reason, rationality and science over theocratic thought, and had very much followed on from 17th century rationalists. So. Blog on and find some sense and sensibility for yourself.
In one sense it is almost self-refuting. Mundus clearly sees himself as an examplar of this rational system he is defending, yet in this short comment has difficulty focusing on reasoned argument.
Not only do we habitually base our judgement on sentiment, this was the doctrine of the Enlightenment. To keep the discussion manageable I have been talking about Hume, Rousseau and Kant as exemplars of 18th century enlightenment philosophising but really Kant is adequate. It is only too easy show that Hume and Rousseau were advocating sentimental ethics, they being quite explicit about it. What is not obvious was that Kant did so too: but was more subtle about it. Mundus’s bluster apart, it is no accident that the Romantic movement sprung out of his philosophy.
I offer three five arguments for the irrationality of Kant’s ethics.
1. J. B. Schneewind and Kant himself says so
In J.B.Schneewind’s definitive history of modern moral philosophy, The Invention of Autonomy, p. 529:
After Rousseau’s heart-altering impact, Kant had of course to reject Leibnizian perfectionism. [...]
He does not abandon self-perfection as a part of morality; but he transforms it. He makes it, as the Cambridge Platonists did, a matter for the heart rather than the head, of the will and feelings rather than the intellect. [...] What is required is not endless improvement in the extent and distinctness of our cognitions. For Kant, we all always know the only thing we need to know for moral perfection: the moral law. The task is not to improve our knowledge, but to increase our virtue — our strength in obeying the law in the right spirit. Because moral perfection is a condition of the will, we can strive for it only in ourselves. The moral perfection of others cannot be our business; their happiness can and should be.
2. Deontological ethics are irrational
Deontological ethics (ethics based on duty), taken to the limit as Kant did, are irrational. Common sense says it is so, but it is quite difficult to see common sense when going up against someone of Kant’s reputation when they are so determined to set it aside. See On Lying.
3. Non-egoist Ethics are Irrational
Classical ethics argue that it is in the ultimate, strategic interest of the agent to act ethically. This provides a closed rational system of ethics. Kant’s system does not have this feature, which makes the system irrational. See When you are NOT going to be Ethical
4. Contingent Benevolence
Modern Enlightened ethics has inverted the classical religious idea of humanity’s contingent imperfection. From the classical perspective it is important to emphasise this fact because (i) it is true and (ii) otherwise folks won’t be motivated to go through the challenges of self-improvement. The Enlightened person sees it psychologically, seeing the emphasis on our contingent imperfections as ruining self esteem, not taking the idea of self-improvement at all seriously, and having no serious tools for the purpose. See Why religion is valuable
5. Kant’s Epistemological Scepticism leads to Irrational Ethics
Kant’s transcendental idealism created the basis for modern romanticism, and modern romanticism, along with Kant’s philosophy, has become highly influential. Contra Mundus, the Romantics clearly represent a central line of development of Kant’s philosophy. See Why religion is valuable and The Romantic Austen (IV)
It’s Really True
We, by which I think I mean mainly progressives (or is it the irreligious), are so captivated by the idea that we woke up in the 18th century, cast aside superstition and religion, and started thinking for ourselves, that it is difficult indeed to comprehend the thought that the 18th century Enlightenment might be a turn away from reason to embrace irrationalism in the field of ethics. Yet that is what happened.
Of course there are few things that will guarantee irrationality than a group proclaiming itself enlightened. All the balancing, self-correcting mechanisms atrophy and it becomes easier to just invest more effort in sustaining the enlightenment narrative than the gruelling task of questioning and revising basic assumptions. We are so satisfied with our own cleverness and intellectual superiority.
Shifting away from the structural reasons for the Enlightenment’s foundations in irrationalism, it is not difficult to see this being played out today. The progressive criticism of conservatives for their resistance to the orthodox scientific narrative on evolution, their religious fundamentalism, their climate-science denial, their reluctance to legalise abortion is grounded on the idea that these are irrational pathologies, an irrational kicking against the Enlightenment by folks determined to cling onto their folk superstition.
What I am trying to show is that the reality is much more interesting than this. The pathological irrationality that progressives see in conservatives is for sure a reaction to the Enlightenment, but it is also profoundly shaped by Romantic, irrational ideas that took hold in the Enlightenment itself, and the pathological irrationality they see in conservatives is mirrored in progressives.
The pathologically irrational elements conservative thinking are well documented. The pathologically irrational elements of progressive thinking are not nearly so well appreciated, which is why I have been spending so much time on them here. Both pathologies have a common origin, the turn away from irrationality. This was bound to happen once we had the industrial means to shield ourselves from the consequences of our own folly, at least for a while…
Austen on Kant
Looking at Scheewind’s summation of Kant’s moral philosophy, I find two things striking. First, the idea that ethics is about the business of striving for moral perfection:
The moral perfection of others cannot be our business; their happiness can and should be.
This is so right and is indicative of why Kant is a far more serious moral philosopher than Hume of the Treatise (which is admittedly not difficult). Austen would surely agree with Kant on this.
Austen’s disagreement with Kant would lie in the earlier emphasis on sentiment at the expense of cognition.
What is required is not endless in the extent and distinctness of our cognitions. For Kant, we all always know the only thing we need to know for moral perfection: the moral law. The task is not to improve our knowledge, but to increase our virtue — our strength in obeying the law in the right spirit.
Starting with Sense and Sensibility, Austen’s novels point out this great mistake, a mistake that may have been all the more damaging for being integrated with so much good moral philosophy.
The Post-rational Civilization
In many of my posts now I have been stating that we live in an age of unreason, and that this was an innovation of the Enlightenment. Nearly all of the recent posts reflect this theme but these recent posts have been quite explicit:
In part 4 of Mark Vernon’s Plato series at the Guardian, Mundus responded to my thesis thus:
In one sense it is almost self-refuting. Mundus clearly sees himself as an examplar of this rational system he is defending, yet in this short comment has difficulty focusing on reasoned argument.
Not only do we habitually base our judgement on sentiment, this was the doctrine of the Enlightenment. To keep the discussion manageable I have been talking about Hume, Rousseau and Kant as exemplars of 18th century enlightenment philosophising but really Kant is adequate. It is only too easy show that Hume and Rousseau were advocating sentimental ethics, they being quite explicit about it. What is not obvious was that Kant did so too: but was more subtle about it. Mundus’s bluster apart, it is no accident that the Romantic movement sprung out of his philosophy.
I offer three five arguments for the irrationality of Kant’s ethics.
1. J. B. Schneewind and Kant himself says so
In J.B.Schneewind’s definitive history of modern moral philosophy, The Invention of Autonomy, p. 529:
2. Deontological ethics are irrational
Deontological ethics (ethics based on duty), taken to the limit as Kant did, are irrational. Common sense says it is so, but it is quite difficult to see common sense when going up against someone of Kant’s reputation when they are so determined to set it aside. See On Lying.
3. Non-egoist Ethics are Irrational
Classical ethics argue that it is in the ultimate, strategic interest of the agent to act ethically. This provides a closed rational system of ethics. Kant’s system does not have this feature, which makes the system irrational. See When you are NOT going to be Ethical
4. Contingent Benevolence
Modern Enlightened ethics has inverted the classical religious idea of humanity’s contingent imperfection. From the classical perspective it is important to emphasise this fact because (i) it is true and (ii) otherwise folks won’t be motivated to go through the challenges of self-improvement. The Enlightened person sees it psychologically, seeing the emphasis on our contingent imperfections as ruining self esteem, not taking the idea of self-improvement at all seriously, and having no serious tools for the purpose. See Why religion is valuable
5. Kant’s Epistemological Scepticism leads to Irrational Ethics
Kant’s transcendental idealism created the basis for modern romanticism, and modern romanticism, along with Kant’s philosophy, has become highly influential. Contra Mundus, the Romantics clearly represent a central line of development of Kant’s philosophy. See Why religion is valuable and The Romantic Austen (IV)
It’s Really True
We, by which I think I mean mainly progressives (or is it the irreligious), are so captivated by the idea that we woke up in the 18th century, cast aside superstition and religion, and started thinking for ourselves, that it is difficult indeed to comprehend the thought that the 18th century Enlightenment might be a turn away from reason to embrace irrationalism in the field of ethics. Yet that is what happened.
Of course there are few things that will guarantee irrationality than a group proclaiming itself enlightened. All the balancing, self-correcting mechanisms atrophy and it becomes easier to just invest more effort in sustaining the enlightenment narrative than the gruelling task of questioning and revising basic assumptions. We are so satisfied with our own cleverness and intellectual superiority.
Shifting away from the structural reasons for the Enlightenment’s foundations in irrationalism, it is not difficult to see this being played out today. The progressive criticism of conservatives for their resistance to the orthodox scientific narrative on evolution, their religious fundamentalism, their climate-science denial, their reluctance to legalise abortion is grounded on the idea that these are irrational pathologies, an irrational kicking against the Enlightenment by folks determined to cling onto their folk superstition.
What I am trying to show is that the reality is much more interesting than this. The pathological irrationality that progressives see in conservatives is for sure a reaction to the Enlightenment, but it is also profoundly shaped by Romantic, irrational ideas that took hold in the Enlightenment itself, and the pathological irrationality they see in conservatives is mirrored in progressives.
The pathologically irrational elements conservative thinking are well documented. The pathologically irrational elements of progressive thinking are not nearly so well appreciated, which is why I have been spending so much time on them here. Both pathologies have a common origin, the turn away from irrationality. This was bound to happen once we had the industrial means to shield ourselves from the consequences of our own folly, at least for a while…
Austen on Kant
Looking at Scheewind’s summation of Kant’s moral philosophy, I find two things striking. First, the idea that ethics is about the business of striving for moral perfection:
This is so right and is indicative of why Kant is a far more serious moral philosopher than Hume of the Treatise (which is admittedly not difficult). Austen would surely agree with Kant on this.
Austen’s disagreement with Kant would lie in the earlier emphasis on sentiment at the expense of cognition.
Starting with Sense and Sensibility, Austen’s novels point out this great mistake, a mistake that may have been all the more damaging for being integrated with so much good moral philosophy.