A question about Kant's ethics

[Tenure]

So, we've finally got to the big K-daddy in Ethics, and I have a question regarding something Ayn Rand said:

In a deontological [duty-centered] theory, all personal desires are banished from the realm of morality; a personal desire has no moral significance, be it a desire to create or a desire to kill. For example, if a man is not supporting his life from duty, such a morality makes no distinction between supporting it by honest labor or by robbery. If a man wants to be honest, he deserves no moral credit; as Kant would put it, such honesty is “praiseworthy,” but without “moral import.” Only a vicious represser, who feels a profound desire to lie, cheat and steal, but forces himself to act honestly for the sake of “duty,” would receive a recognition of moral worth from Kant and his ilk.

Causality Versus Duty,” Philosophy: Who Needs It,

I think this ignores the wide scope of the Categorical Imperative. Sure, one could ask: "Should I support my life?" and frames it in such a way that it does not produce a contradiction when stuck through the Categorical Imperative machine. But it doesn't give him free reign to do whatever he wants from then on. He must then ask how he should support his life. For instance: "Should I support my life by robbing men?" and the C.I would say: "All men should to support their lives - which requires values/money-to-buy-those-values - by stealing the required values from other men"

This would not only violate the 'treat every man as an end' iteration of the C.I, but it would also lead to a contradiction, such as, "If everyone did this, then no one would trust anyone, and no one would dare ever produce values, or at least, keep them anywhere where anyone could get them" (as Atlas Shrugged shows ).

A further question occurred to me: doesn't the Objectivist ethics rest on a a kind of converse principle of universality? That is, you ask 'Should I honestly produce values or steal them?' and, well, you kind of do the opposite of Kant. Where he asks, "What if everyone made it a principle?", Rand asks, "What if you made it a principle of life?" and finds that a contradiction occurs, between robbery and life.

(This is, of course, a purely polemical answer to the question - the real answer lies in inducing precisely why Reason is man's means of survival, why it is his sole means of survival, and why force is totally contrary to Reason, why values are the product of Reason, and probably a host of other inductions).

[ Eurgh, I just realised, on review, that she was talking about the man who isn't dutiful. Still, if anyone could point out any problems with my reasoning, it would be much appreciated. Cheers! ]

Edited February 11, 2009 by Tenure

[knast]

I am not sure I understand the dilemma correctly.

The point Rand is making is that, according to a deontological theory of morality, the consequences or desires is of no interest or value. All that matters is that you do you duty simply because it is your duty - and _only_ because it is your duty. Kant don't says: "What would happen in terms of consequences?" He says: "Can this maxim, logically speaking, be universalized?" Kant is not a rule utilitarian.

Rand do not oppose consistency and the categorical imperative is essentially a plead for logical consistency. That is why Kant's theory seem plausible to a lot of people. In this respect there is no contradiction between Kant and Rand. But in another respect there is a _fundamental_ difference. Rand argues for logical consistency because it is in your objective, rational self-interest to be logical. Kant, on the other hand, never speak in such terms, precisely because he is a deontologist.