Immanuel Kant
- Thread starter MX Red
- Start date
The problem ive got is that i have to bridge his deontological position with that of Feinberg's harm principle - a positivly Consequentialist position. This may seem a tad impossible, but it isnt since Feinberg doesnt box himself into the liberal positions like that of John Stuart Mill.
The topic im studing (The war on drugs), the opinions prohibitionists hold are constucted via a Deontological assumptions - but are defended on consequentialist grounds - thus a hybird theory must be possible...but first i have to understand the Kant position - which i dont!
Like i said if anyone can help it would be great!
peace
MX!
The topic im studing (The war on drugs), the opinions prohibitionists hold are constucted via a Deontological assumptions - but are defended on consequentialist grounds - thus a hybird theory must be possible...but first i have to understand the Kant position - which i dont!
Like i said if anyone can help it would be great!
peace
MX!
Cheers - thanks for that!
Do u not think that i havent read all the available litreature? I would know if someone didnt have a clue what they were talking about as i have a good understanding of Mill and Feinberg's work, and i do have a somewhat limited understanding of what Kant is going on about...i dont want someone to simply give an overview of his work, i could sum up his work quite easily. I need someone who actually understands the fundamentals of his work, the metaphysical basis of his work - not simply someone who understands the Categorical Imperative. To read his work wouldnt be time-effective, its only the backround theory to suppliment the hybird theory of Kant/Feinberg.
But thanks for the good luck, something that should only take me a few hours is taking me days...Im gonna need all the luck i can get :thumb:
peace
MX!
Do u not think that i havent read all the available litreature? I would know if someone didnt have a clue what they were talking about as i have a good understanding of Mill and Feinberg's work, and i do have a somewhat limited understanding of what Kant is going on about...i dont want someone to simply give an overview of his work, i could sum up his work quite easily. I need someone who actually understands the fundamentals of his work, the metaphysical basis of his work - not simply someone who understands the Categorical Imperative. To read his work wouldnt be time-effective, its only the backround theory to suppliment the hybird theory of Kant/Feinberg.
But thanks for the good luck, something that should only take me a few hours is taking me days...Im gonna need all the luck i can get :thumb:
peace
MX!
If you have, I really can't help you, cause I just started with Kant. I could give you an overview what he stood for but since you can do that yourself (and I guess even better then I could do it) I don't think you can expect much help here, not from me nor someone else 
- that's why there's nothing left to say good luck. 
Anyway, what is your dissertation for? War on drugs doesn't sound like a philosophical topic, more likley it's a political and/or economic topic...?
- that's why there's nothing left to say good luck. Anyway, what is your dissertation for? War on drugs doesn't sound like a philosophical topic, more likley it's a political and/or economic topic...?
Its actually on drug policy and the effectivness of prohibition, prohibition is failing as a policy - it isnt doing what it intended - thus why are governments still following this policy - the roots lie in Kant's ethical theory! But how and why (basically their justifications for continuing with prohibition) they constuct policy lie in Feinbergs harm principle and legal paternalism and to some extent especially in America legal moralism (which is a Kantian anyway). Philosophy is a part of the answer - thing is i do sociology and its hard trying to understand the finer points of philosophy
peace
MX!
peace
MX!
No need to worry bout it, Ive sorted it now, just fucking hate it when i dont understand summing. Its taken me all fucking day though and ive only written 500 odd words, i wanted at least 1,000 by now!
Dont worry bout it Ken, three or four days ago i would have said exactly the same as u! Unless u need to study it why would u know anything about it?
peace
MX!
Dont worry bout it Ken, three or four days ago i would have said exactly the same as u! Unless u need to study it why would u know anything about it?
peace
MX!
I got a distinction in philosophy at uni,, i remember i had some readings on Kant, but most of these people are totally out of line with society,, they have no idea whats going on, and they desperately want people to acknowledge them as being smart. I guess your hanging out to finish uni as well eh.
Amara said:
I have studied the rationale of drug prohibition in criminal law, but we predominantly focussed on Mill. I'm familiar with Kant's work, but shit...it was a while ago and I wasn't paying attention....heheh, there is a lecturer in my department at uni who specialises in Kant...you need her.
The Deontological Position
Deontology is closely associated with the works Immanuel Kant. Kant argues in his work ‘Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals’ that human action should be based solely on a moral basis, that our moral obligation should take president regardless to the consequences of that action, even if a negative action would occur.
Undoubtedly this is the position world politicians have adopted in analysing the question of drug use, one has to look no further than the UN’s 1961 The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs for evidence of this: -
“Recognizing that addiction to narcotic drugs constitutes a serious evil for the individual and is fraught with social and economic danger to mankind,
Conscious of their duty to prevent and combat this evil” (Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, p.4 – Bold text added)
Or simply observe the rhetoric concerning drug policy: ‘The War on Drugs’. Such morality is constructed under Kant’s laws of Categorical Imperative, which state: -
§ The first (Universal Law formulation): "Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."
§ The second (Humanity or End in Itself formulation): "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." (www.encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com)
The first law represents a desire for consistency, moral laws that are applicable to the whole of humanity – what moral laws one abides by must be equally applicable to another, there cannot be one rule for one and another for everyone else.
The second law is a continuation from the first, if we are to use other people as merely a means to an end, and construct a universal law on this basis, it must be realised that a universal law that allows this would harm us as we would also be subjected to treatment as a means to an end, one must acknowledge other people as ends-in-themselves, thus universal fairness that acknowledges everyone’s right to humanity is a prerequisite for a universal law, thus the theory suggests that morality has an intrinsic value.
But how does this relate to drug use? Within the Governments paper ‘Updated Drug Strategy 2002’ it states: -
“The misery this causes [drugs] cannot be underestimated. It damages the health and life chances of individuals; it undermines family life, and it turns law-abiding citizens into thieves. The use of drugs contribute dramatically to the volume of crime...Quite simply, drug misuse contributes enormously to the undermining of family and community life – more some may say, than any other single commodity or social influence.” (Updated Drug Strategy 2002, 2002, p.3)
Thus if one was to apply the above statement to Kant’s law’s of Categorical Imperative the results would be a universal law which would treat people as a means rather than an end. If drug use ‘turns law-abiding citizens into thieves’, how can a universal law that excepts humanity as equal in rights and duties allow a universal law that would allow the benefit of one over the rights of another. Also the same holds true in regards to family life – the actions of one should not impair on the rights and duties of another as is stated in the fore mentioned quote.
Peter Cohen in his work ‘The drug prohibition church and the adventure of reformation’ offers an account of the deontological nature of drug policy: -
“Whatever the origin of the UN Drug Treaties, and whatever the official rhetoric about their functions, the best way to look at them now is as religious texts. They have acquired a patina of intrinsic and unquestioned value and they have attracted a clique of true believers and proselytes to promote them. They pursue a version of Humankind for whom abstinence from certain drugs is dogma in the same way as other religious texts might prohibit certain foods or activities” (The drug prohibition church and the adventure of reformation, 2003 p.213)
Peace
MX!
Donate
Any donations will be used to help pay for the site costs, and anything donated above will be donated to C-Dub's son on behalf of this community.
Members online
No members online now.