Kant emphasizes the requirement of individuals being both free and rational agents in creating and applying a moral standard. He argues that these characteristics are what uniquely make humans able to understand and act upon moral principles. Thus, "...the most fundamental moral principles must therefore apply to any possible (free and) rational agent" (289). Kant then argues that these same characteristics which "make us subject to moral oughts...are also sufficient for us to comply with them" (289). Similarly, these these characteristics are also what make lead Darwell to his account 'reciprocal accountability,' or why we are bound and restricted by these moral obligations. Furthermore, a moral community is one is which freely acting moral agents are all accountable to one another.
In each of these aspects of Kant's account, we presume the existence of society of human beings. Morality would take on a different form if we were not assuming that we are constantly interacting with other free and rational beings. Like Darwell explains, would not matter if we lied if the subject of the lie was not similarly a human. Yet this makes me consider whether or not this account requires a more extensive definition of free and rational. Does one only need to be a human by nature in order to be considered to have these characteristics? What about the issues of mental health, or even imposed social positions? Furthermore, does a moral society require a state that ensures such standards of basic equality? I'm curious to hear others' thoughts.
Doesn't Darwall answer the question of whether we have to be human? Isn't the moral law binding on all moral agents according to Kant, including Vulcans and God?
ReplyDelete