Pablo Muchnik in his book, Kant's Theory of Evil, argues that Kant explicates the radical tendency to evil in the notions of the weakness of the human heart, the impurity of the human heart, and finally in the wickedness of the human heart. The weakness of the human heart is signified in the idea of the weakness of the will. St. Paul confessed that what he willed to do, he did not do, and what he willed not to do he did (Romans 7). The acting person knows the action is morally required, but fails to pursue it and instead acts out of inclination. In this case, Muchnik argues, the agent knows the validity of the moral law, but does not give the authority to determine her actions. Kant says the acting person with a weak heart, then makes herself think that her motivation is basically good, even when her actions speak to the contrary (p. 157). Muchnik holds that the acting person with a weak heart is lead to gluttony, lust, and wild lawlessness [in relation to other human beings] even in the situation where moral luck makes her temperate and humble.
Pablo Muchnik has a genuinely intriguing book and a fascinating take on this controversial subject matter in Kant. I now understand the idea of radical evil in Kant much better. Muchnik, in his book Kant's Theory of Evil, clarifies the issues involved in Immanuel Kant's doctrine of radical evil. Muchnik steers a a course between Henry Allison and Allen Wood by showing that the idea that human beings have an inclination to evil is not just an empirical conclusion but also has a priori status.
The weak heart knows better but does not do what it knows, but the impure heart does not take the moral law as a necessary motivation for moral action but allows impulses of the inclinations to determine her actions. Her actions adhere to duty, but are not done purely from duty. The moral agent's actual motivation is self-love even if it looks like she is doing the morally right thing. Muchnik tells us that this agent changes morality in to a system of hypothetical imperatives.
The wicked heart is depraved and turns over moral judgment at its root. The wicked heart seeks non-moral reasons as a matter of principle. He callously makes use of all other persons as a means to his own goals, justifying his behavior in terms of a perverse conception of the goodness (p. 161). Kant considers this the highest expression of the tendency to evil. This person in principle refuses to respect other persons and even himself.
Muchnik also takes a position on the sticky question of whether Kant's position can adequately account for the immorality of murder and genocide. Against Claudia Card and Bernstein, he defends Kant's position that even these horrific acts are motivated by self-love. Bernstein wants to rehabilitate the idea of a diabolical will, but Muchnik argues that such a will would be incapable of being legislative and would undermine itself.
Pablo Muchnik has a genuinely intriguing book and a fascinating take on this controversial subject matter in Kant. I now understand the idea of radical evil in Kant much better. Muchnik, in his book Kant's Theory of Evil, clarifies the issues involved in Immanuel Kant's doctrine of radical evil. Muchnik steers a a course between Henry Allison and Allen Wood by showing that the idea that human beings have an inclination to evil is not just an empirical conclusion but also has a priori status.
The weak heart knows better but does not do what it knows, but the impure heart does not take the moral law as a necessary motivation for moral action but allows impulses of the inclinations to determine her actions. Her actions adhere to duty, but are not done purely from duty. The moral agent's actual motivation is self-love even if it looks like she is doing the morally right thing. Muchnik tells us that this agent changes morality in to a system of hypothetical imperatives.
The wicked heart is depraved and turns over moral judgment at its root. The wicked heart seeks non-moral reasons as a matter of principle. He callously makes use of all other persons as a means to his own goals, justifying his behavior in terms of a perverse conception of the goodness (p. 161). Kant considers this the highest expression of the tendency to evil. This person in principle refuses to respect other persons and even himself.
Muchnik also takes a position on the sticky question of whether Kant's position can adequately account for the immorality of murder and genocide. Against Claudia Card and Bernstein, he defends Kant's position that even these horrific acts are motivated by self-love. Bernstein wants to rehabilitate the idea of a diabolical will, but Muchnik argues that such a will would be incapable of being legislative and would undermine itself.
About the Author:
Looking to find the best information on Immanuel Kant, then visit www.kantianschool.blogspot.com to find the best advice on critical thinking and what it can do for you.
No comments:
Post a Comment