Kant

Notes from UCSC, Politics 105d with Robert Meister

Kant, or the end to all those drunken free will debates.

Kant wanted to be able to say, not that I can know, not that I am governed by me and not you, not am I actually free
But how can I act consistently with the possibility that I am free?

Kant seeks to show that freedom is a potentiality

I can act consistently with the belief that I have dignity even in this body
I can test to see if I have freedom or dignity

Kant's test is the categorical imperative
World of reasons­=anyone can do, aims, free will
World of cause­=one after the other, paths, linear, mechanistic, determined
How can I make my own freedom intelligible to myself without being able to know if my freedom is a reason or a cause?
(The Lacanian real is what is left out between reasons and causes)

I must test reason to see if it is consistent with my freedom:

I imagine myself as a legislator, and everyone had to act on this law as a causal necessity. A universal law of nature, so that everyone else had to obey it the way rocks fall.
Would I still do it if everyone else was causally forced to?
If this were a law of nature, Would it still be a reason?
Is acting on self interest ethical?
For Adam Smith: yes!

If everyone else had to be altruistic, and only you had a choice, would you be altruistic or would you be self-interested?
If everyone else in the world was forced to assume the social identity you have, would you keep that identity or forge a new one?
Is your life a reason or is it a cause?