Kant and Jesus Art Culo

8/10/2019 Kant and Jesus Art Culo

1/6

International Phenomenological Society

Kant and JesusAuthor(s): Peter A. CarmichaelSource: Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Vol. 33, No. 3 (Mar., 1973), pp. 412-416Published by: International Phenomenological SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2106954.

Accessed: 31/05/2013 14:31

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

International Phenomenological Societyis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Philosophy and Phenomenological Research.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Fri, 31 May 2013 14:31:48 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ipshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2106954?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2106954?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ips


2/6

DISCUSSION

KANT

AND

JESUS

An

article in Mind of

April,

1970, by

S.

B.

Thomas

argues

that

theCategorical

Imperative

of Kant

and the Golden Rule of Jesus

are sides of the same coin, one side, the Imperative, "providing a

clarificationof the

rational

scope"

of the

other,

and, the other

"pro-

viding

the

spiritual

basis for the

correct

application"

of the

Impera-

tive.

Kant said of

the Golden

Rule:

. . .

it

cannot be a universal

law,

for it does not contain the

principle

of

duties

to

oneself,

nor of the duties

of

benevolence

to

others

(for many

a one

would

gladly consent that others should not benefit

him, provided

only

that he

mightbe excused

from

howing

benevolence to

them),

nor

finally

hat of duties

of strict bligation o one another,for on thisprinciplethe criminalmight rgue

against the

judge

who punishes

him, and so

on. -Critique of

PracticalReason,

translated

by T. K.

Abbott,6th ed.,

p.

48 n.

This is

untouched in Mr. Thomas'

argument.

And it

might be

carried even

farther.

Under

the Golden Rule a

masochist

would be

justified

n

torturing

thers,

nd

partners

n

debauchery

could

appeal

to it

sanctimoniously.At

large, if it

prevailed no

one

would know

what to

expect of

others. Life

would degenerate

to the

condition

memorialized by

Hobbes

as "solitary,

poor,

nasty,brutish,

nd

short."

Between this

and the

operation of the

Categorical

Imperative

the

difference s like

that

between

egoism and

high-mindedness:

the

Golden

Rule

enjoins

everyone

to make

his

ways a

standard

for

everyone

else; the

Categorical

Imperative

requires

everyone to

sub-

mit

himself o

universal

standards.

The

motive of

the one is

extended

self-satisfaction; f

the

other it is a

nascency

of mind, an

imperative

towards

pure

understanding

and a life

accorded with

it.

Instead of the

manifest antithesis

between the

two,Mr.

Thomas

believes he sees a mutuality nd ultimateidentity.The essence of his

argument

seems

to

be:

That a

communion of

feelings,

n

"existential

412

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/6

KANT

AND JESUS

413

stance"

reached

by individuals

in concert,

s the principle,

the

sub-

stance,

of

moral rules,

which only

formalize

stances;

that the Golden

Rule

is a

formalization

of

that

kind,

and the Categorical

Imperative

a furtherformalization, n accord with it; that this is supremely

apparent in

the

life of Jesus,

"the unfolding

of selfless

love, an out-

pouring

of

self for others"

(p.

198), which undercuts

moral rules

such

as

the

Categorical

Imperative,

and

makes them needless;

but that

this

does not

nullify

hem,

rather

t

shows

them

subordinate

to that

love.

We know

of

freedom

from aw in the

world of

fantasy

and

make-

believe;

forexample,

the wonderland

of Lewis Carroll and

the art

of

Charlie

Chaplin

(who

was a

phantom

buffetedby things

n the

for-

eignworld of natural law). This has no moral relevance.

Mr.

Thomas,

to

the

contrary,

sees in the

like

a transcendence

of

moral law. First

a release

fromall

such law.

This occurs

in a

deli-

quescence,

so to say,

of

moral decisions

into an existential

solvent

wherein

the

feelings

and

interests

of the agent

and of others

con-

cerned

(who

thus

become

coagents)

are

merged.

Then

to the

Chris-

tian

there accrues

an existential

wherewithalfrom

the life of

Jesus

for the resolution

of every

moral

problem.

In the

life of

Jesus,

who

taughttheGoldenRule, even theCategorical Imperativeis "instanced

personally"

(p.

199).

The actualization

of

such

a

state

is

conceivable,

but

at

a cost

hardly

affordable n

the world. It

would require

that everyone

merge

his desires

and

interestswith

everyone

else's.

Marriages,

fraternities,

holy orders

are

probably

the nearest approximation

to that

perfect

communion.

How far short

they

fall The nearer

theymight

approach

it,

the

narrower their

scope.

The result would

be an

impoverishment

of life, ncludingdivine ntimations nd realizations farexcelling any-

thing

n fellow-feeling.hey

would come

nowhere

near to

satisfying

the moral

requirements

of

the world.

As little does their

principle,

the Golden

Rule,

match

the

Categorical

Imperative.

If

you

undercut

all moral

law,

there s no

ready way

of

resolving

a moral

question.

Nothing

s

right,

wrong,

obligatory,

eserved,

unless

for

you

and such

others

as

may agree

with

you.

If

you

think an

end

of the world

is

imminent,possibly

an ad hoc

or

situation

ethic

will

serve,under which you may abandon home, family, but No; this is

an abandonment

of ethics

altogether.

f the world

endures

and men

do

not stifle themselves,

everything

s different.

Then

some.

law,

ideally

such

a

one

as

the

Categorical

Imperative,

s a

necessity.

Under



4/6

414

PHILOSOPHY

AND

PHENOMENOLOGICAL

ESEARCH

the Categorical

Imperative

who would

object to being judged?

For

in

avowing it

we apply

it to ourselves.

It epitomizes

an entire

moral

world,

impartial,

enlightened,

xalting.

The pertinency f the "out-pouring f self forothers," ts efficacy

for undercutting

he

Categorical

Imperative,

is not

apparent.

In

an

imaginarymicrocosm

where

the

spirit of

charity

imbued

all

and

egoism

did not

exist,moral

rules

would

indeed

be needless.

Self

would

hardly

be

recognizable.

On the

earth everything

differsfrom

that.

Selves everywhere

re under

tension

and must

struggle not

for

mas-

tery

but

for

iberation

from

ll

kinds

of

limitation

nd

for the

fruition

of their powers.

The

world

does not

afford

a limitless,

even an

ade-

quate, supply of the article Mr. Thomas requires

-

charity,

ove

nor

are

there

means

for wondrously

generating

t

at

will.

If this

is denied and we are

said to

be

qualified

to

surmount

our

limitations,

not

just

in extremitiesbut ordinarily,

hat is a proposi-

tion

which must

be

probatively

ustified,

not just

believed.

Ignoring

or indulging

shortcomings,

hrough

charity,

complaisance,

love,

or

what not,

may

deaden or

discourage self-development,

o the cost

of

all. Love

is

precious

but

is not always

the indicated need,

whether

of

children

or

of a people.

Mr.

Thomas

thinksthe

Categorical

Imperative

might

nduce

self-

righteousness.

This would

be an accident

if

so;

and

self-righteousness,

or

simple egoism

extended,

s the essence

of

the

Golden

Rule.

Under

the

Categorical

Imperative

the

tendency

s

towards

amor intellectualis

dei;

I must

endeavor

to

rise to a

plane

where

I

may

see as the

ideal

observer

sees

(as

God

sees,

according

to

some

authors

who

have

aspired

to the

like).

The

proposition

that

the

Imperative

was

exemplified

n the

life

of Jesus,which Mr. Thomas asserts, is hard to comprehend.Jesus,

whose

life and

way,

says

Mr.

Thomas,

are

to be

shared

by

the

Chris-

tian,

counsels

people-

not

to

judge

one

another.

He himself freely

judged

others.

For

instance,

some

who

hesitated

to dine

without

first

washing the

hands

drew from

him the excoriation,

"Hyplocrites"

(Mark

7:5-6),

and numerous similar

instances

are

reported

(e.g.,

Matthew

6:5, 7:5,

15:7,23:13).

Mr.

Thomas

speaks

of

having

a "feel" for "the

existential

stand-

point of Jesus" (pp. 192, 194) and he is satisfied that "the fact of

Jesus . .

.

proves

the

existence

of

the

Eternal

Himself

beyond all

shadow

of

existential doubt"

(p. 198).

This

is hardly pertinent

o

the

relation

of

the

Categorical

Imperative

to the

Golden Rule

but

is



5/6

KANT AND

JESUS 415

indicative of a

sedation or transformation f reason which

occurs

on the "existential stance." Is

existential certitude any more telling

than

existential doubt?

Is

either of them probative at all? Passion,

anguish, feeling of any kind

-

what have they to do with law? No

more than with the multiplication

able. They are immune to law and

law

is immune

to them.

Privately,phenomenologically, hey may in-

spire the constructionof

a

wonderworld having fanciful aws or no

laws.

Nothing

of

the kind

touches

the

Categorical Imperative. Its

jurisdiction

is the world

of

action

where

laws are

indispensable and

sedition brings sanctions, even including death.

Nor

can

the

Categorical Imperative

be

watered

down

to

where

it would

say, "Confer, ommune, attain

mutuality."

t

implies

none of

the "existential stance" Mr.Thomas conceives.Rather, t is an uncon-

ditional, unequivocal command

of

reason (the

ratio

of

ethical

exis-

tence)

to

all

individuals,

directing

their action now.

The

supposition

that it

merges

with,

s one

with,

the Golden

Rule

is untenable.

That

would

mean,

on

Mr.

Thomas'

version,

that

the

fellowship attained by

a

small

band of

congenial spirits

is

the

same

thing

as the universe

of

moral

agents governed by

Kant's

principle.

The

one

says,

"Make

your

own desires the

standard for

all";

the

other

says, "Submit yourselfto a universal standard."

The

idea that

the Categorical Imperative

needs

a

"spiritual

basis"

for

its

"correct application" is

quite fanciful.

There is no

question

about

correct

application

of

something

that

applies universally

that would

be

like

a

correct

application

of

the law of

universal gravi-

tation.

And

a

spiritual

basis for

applying

the

Imperative

-

what

would

that

be? A

palliative,

an

indulgence

of some

kind? From the

undercutter and nullifier of

the

Imperative?

That seems

hardly

serious.

Since Mr. Thomas holds

that the Golden

Rule

and

the

Categorical

Imperative

are

virtually dentical despite their manifest antithesis,

one

may

ask

what there

is

in

his

argument

that

brings

him

to that

thesis.

In a word

it is his

"existential stance." On

that,

moral

rules

are

undercut, yet

the two in

question

stand:

annulled, they

are

yet

not annulled.

Since

that

is a

logical

impossibility,

ts

implicans,

the

alleged stance,

is

itself ogically undercut,

or

falsified. Conceivably it

might tand just

as a

psychological,

make-believe

tate,

but not in the

implicative capacity supposed, since the alleged implicate is a self-

contradiction.)

So

it

is

out

of

make-believeor

falsity

that

the

two

incompatibles



6/6

416

PHILOSOPHY

AND

PHENOMENOLOGICAL

RESEARCH

are "reconciled"

and Kant

and the Golden Rule he rejected

are set

at one. But,

from nothingcomes

nothing.The stance itself

undercut,

nothing rises

from t.

So the great philosopheris not compromised.

PETER A.

CARMICHAEL.

LOUISIANA STATE

UNIVERSITY.

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

Kant and Jesus Art Culo

Documents

Transcript of Kant and Jesus Art Culo