A Philosophical Overview: From Kant to Ortega

Posted on Nov 3, 2024 in Philosophy and ethics

Kant: Formal Ethics

Kant’s ethics differ from earlier material ethics, which focused on achieving the highest good (happiness, pleasure) through specific rules. Material ethics have three flaws:

  1. They are empirical (a posteriori), relying on experience, which cannot yield universal principles.
  2. They are hypothetical imperatives, dependent on the desire for a supreme good (e.g., “If you want X, do Y”).
  3. They are heteronomous, with reason receiving external instructions, thus lacking freedom.

Kant’s solution is a formal ethic, devoid of specific content or a highest good.

The Notion of Duty and the Categorical Imperative

An action is morally good if done out of duty. Actions are classified as:

  1. Contrary to duty: Immoral actions done despite knowing the obligation.
  2. In accordance with duty: Actions done for reasons unrelated to duty.
  3. From duty: Truly moral actions done because of the obligation.

Moral value depends solely on the relationship to duty. Duty involves respecting the categorical imperative, an unconditional command. Only the categorical imperative can be universal.

Nietzsche: Apollonian and Dionysian

Nietzsche identifies two opposing forces:

  1. Apollonian: Representing light, beauty, and form.
  2. Dionysian: Representing darkness and the frenzy of orgy.

Greek tragedy embodies this tension. The hero confronts fate, leading to misfortune. Suffering stems from individuality, but should be accepted. Nietzsche proposes “love of fate,” embracing life’s irrationality. Art interprets philosophy; the artist, like Dionysus, creates and destroys, embodying the “will to power.”

God and Nihilism

Nietzsche challenges traditional truth, claiming only interpretations exist. He diagnoses 19th-century European culture as decadent, marked by disbelief in God. This “death of God” leads to nihilism, a lack of conviction. Judeo-Christian morality is a “herd morality.” Nietzsche advocates for life-affirming values over otherworldly concerns. Nihilism, while negative, opens possibilities for new values.

Marx: Anthropology

Humans are essentially workers, transforming nature through labor. Work, ideally, is not alienating, allowing self-development. Humans are social and historical beings, realizing themselves through history’s dialectical progression of production modes. The ideal is a classless society. However, in class societies, the proletariat is alienated, with capitalists controlling labor and its benefits. Marx advocates for class struggle to reclaim work and achieve a classless society.

Rousseau: The Social Contract

Rousseau, building on Hobbes and Locke, bases political power on the people’s will. He criticizes the Enlightenment’s faith in progress, arguing that sciences and arts create unequal societies. His “noble savage” hypothesis posits that humans are naturally good, corrupted by society. Rousseau’s social contract involves individuals submitting to the general will, promoting harmony between feeling and reason. The general will, formed through the union of individuals, establishes laws applied equally, fostering the common good.

Ortega y Gasset: Perspectivism and Knowledge

Ortega y Gasset, a phenomenologist, emphasizes the interconnectedness of self and circumstance (“I am myself and my circumstances”). He advocates for ratiovitalism, integrating reason and life. Perspectivism, his theory of knowledge, posits that absolute knowledge is unattainable; individuals have unique perspectives based on their situation. However, this isn’t relativism; truth exists as a multitude of perspectives. Ortega defines “vital reason” as reason serving life, contrasting it with scientific reason. He also emphasizes historical reason, recognizing humans as historical beings shaped by culture and tradition. He distinguishes between explicit ideas and underlying beliefs that shape our worldview.