This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: yone else do it, too, without incoherence. BUT you do get a contradiction with your OWN will. Kant thinks we, as a matter of natural necessity, always want to stay alive. So we cannot will the suicide without contradicting our own will (to survive). The second example Kant mentions is just The second example Kant mentions is just the lying promise case.
We’ve already seen how this guy’s maxim generates a contradiction (not one in his own will, but) when applied to everyone’s wills. The third case is a person who has a The third case is a person who has a particular talent, but also is comfortable where he’s at and doesn’t really care to put in the work to develop the talent. So his maxim is something like:
“I will not develop my talent when I’m in comfortable circumstances because I want to preserve that comfort.” This is like the case of the suicide guy. It’s This is like the case of the suicide guy. It’s not that making that an operative principle of everyone’s will leads to a contradiction (everyone could be lazy with no problems!). But you couldn’t will this on your own.
Not only does Kant think that you naturally will to stay alive, he also (no clue why!) thinks that you necessarily will that faculties be developed. Fourth, last, is the case of the person who is Fourth, last, is the case of the person who is doing well but who refuses to give to charity.
His maxim is something like:
“I will not give money to help people, even when I’m in luxurious circumstances, because I don’t want to jeopardize my position.” Once again, there is no contradiction Once again, there is no contradiction produced if everyone were to adopt this maxim.
But, again, this is not something that you can will because it contradicts your own will. When we’re in those sorts of circumstanc...
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 10/14/2011 for the course PHIL 2103 taught by Professor Staff during the Fall '08 term at Arkansas.
- Fall '08