One thing that I find
particularly interesting about Kant’s philosophy is his emphasis on freedom and
its connection to someone performing a just act. According to Kant, if one does
something that one would consider just because it is the law or because something
like the bible encourages people to do something, Kant would consider this
coercion. A person who does something
for any reason besides the fact that they themselves want to do it is coerced.
Laws and religious teachings are so
engraved in our society that it is hard to imagine our society without them.
People who don’t follow the law or the bible are usually considered to be ‘bad’
people. Though there have been unjust laws and everything the bible teaches
isn’t just. Most laws and things in the bible apply to Kant’s first Categorical
Imperative to “act only in such a way that you could will the maxim of your
action as a universal law”. There are universal laws and most of the universal
laws come from religious source, which is in large part, the purpose of these
religious doctrines; to get ensure that any rational citizen would agree that
this law is just. However, according to Kant anyone who listens to these is not
acting according on their own, they are influenced by another source. Since both
laws and religious teachings are so engraved in our society, do you agree with Kant?
What would happen if we stopped putting such emphasis on religious teachings or
laws?
Well, I think that Kant's answer to this would be that an emphasis on religious or even political laws is not necessary for societies to function justly-- the only necessity is rationality and adherence to the universal maxim. As a religious person, I believe that the supplemental guidance of religious laws support the same rational notions of justice and morality that Kant's system does. (Granted this is because I have a mostly liberal interpretation of religious tenets in the Christian tradition.) Ideally, under Kant's paradigm, society would be able to function without these supplemental structures, but is there a historical example of a society without religious or secular political laws to govern? I cannot think of one. Thus, I find Kant's theory to be understandable but perhaps too idealistic to apply to society as a whole.
ReplyDeleteI think that it would depend on the person, whether or not religious ideals would be considered coercion. Generally, people that are firm believers want to do the right thing. Although their religious principles encourage their desire to actually do the right thing, I do not believe it causes them to do anything against their will. Like you said, laws and religion are so engrained into our society that it is almost impossible to think about what choice someone would choose if they were governed by neither. Being influenced by something does not necessarily mean that you are being forced to choose one way or another – it can merely be an opinion to help you choose a course of action.
ReplyDeleteI think it’s important to note that neither religion nor the law simply reinforce “good” behaviors; they also offer threats in response to “bad” behavior. Laws offer tangible punishments for bad deeds, and religions offer intangible punishments of a miserable afterlife, not reaching nirvana, etc. If they offered teachings that were wholly disconnected from threats, I think we could consider them to be supplemental guidance as Lucy referred to them. As long as threats are tied to religion and laws, I think it’s essentially impossible to not consider this a form of coercion. Every person has the option to observe their own society’s teachings and make a judgment about the rightness or justness of them. I suppose one could make the argument that such ingrained institutions sort of “brainwash” people from a young age into blindly following their respective teachings, but do you think a “brainwashed” person is a truly rational person?
ReplyDeleteI understand the argument to say that people are coerced because of religion. It is true that religion set forth a guideline and laws. However i feel that in most cases these laws a basic human laws and society would maintain its level of justice because some people would do right and some would do wrong. I feel like relgion is more simply human law written down than a form of coercion.
ReplyDeleteWhen you say "basic human laws", do you mean some set of instinctive behaviors that we naturally gravitate toward, something more similar to Kant's idea of universal laws, or some basic form of legal system that persists throughout the species?
DeleteIf it's either of the first two, isn't the added threat of hell, not reaching nirvana, etc. important? I feel like the addition of a threat for bad behavior makes it a form of coercion, whether you consciously acknowledge the threat or not.
If you meant some basic form of legal system, I feel like your idea about religion would merely be an extension of the coercive power of law.