Bretty123
6th August 2006, 07:28
Similarities in the Foundations of
Kant and Marx
By: Brett Collins
The views of these philosophers are so similar in ethical action, and social practicality(I somewhat disagree with my point here now that ive studied a bit more I think that Marx is much more practical but both are looking for similar social practicalities), that if put into the same context in history would assume the role of the most ethically bound philosophers in history. Karl Marx was a materialist, and Immanuel Kant was for his published work, an ethical absolutist(Kessler 82) who was inspired by his notion of categorical imperative. This essay will seek out the similarities between both philosophers theories on ethics and nature of humanity, and also present the differences so they can be reconciled, or perhaps show the distinctions as to why they are necessarily separated in the study of ethics. The difficult task of discussing both philosophers and finding mediums in which they have similarities is difficult because both talked about and focused on different aspects of ethics. For Karl Marx, ethics was more about the impending problems of the economic system and how persons were treated. For Immanuel Kant, the study of ethics was more focused on universality and the approach one has to participate in to become “moral”. Inevitably both will come to similar conclusions.
Marx categorized the economic societies of history as class struggle's involving bourgeoise and proletariats. The system was the problem for Marx, wherein people became “appendages of the machine”(Marx 87). Marx was referring to the economic structure of capitalism. Following this Marx discusses how only the “most simple, most monotonous, and most easily acquired knack, that is required of him”(Ibid) which shows a greater and deeper division of labour that necessarily must exist in the capitalist economic theory. Marx comes to the conclusion that consequently the cost of subsistence that one requires to maintain themselves, and propogate the race(more importantly propagate the number of proletariats), is restricted almost entirely to the cost of production(Ibid). This is the first inference of ethics that one can see in Karl Marx theory on the commodity to production by proletariat correlation. Marx is inferring that ethically the social structure and economic production controllers, the bourgeoise, determine the worth of a human by the production accumulated from their labour. Marx also states “All [people] are instruments of labour, more or less expensive to use, according to their age and sex.”(Marx 88). So one can see conclusively that although Marx does not directly assert an ethical obligation to view persons as ends in themselves, he does so quite well. Marx also advocates that for the bourgeoise society, living labour is a means to increase the accumulated labour, yet with a communist society accumulated labour is a means to widen, enrich, and promote the existence of the labourer(Marx 97). So we can see seemingly that Marx is advocating the enrichment of the individual through a society based on structures of equality in the economy. Some would say that he is not advocating the existence of individuality in any sense but this is untrue. His advocation of individual enrichment is through cooperation and abolishment of private property, or in better terms abolishment of bourgeoise property, where it is characterized by acquirement of property from “exploitation of many by the few”(Marx 96). In fact Marx suggests that in bourgeoise society, the capital is independent and held as individual whereas the living person, or labourer, is dependent and pertains to no individuality(Marx 98). So one must note, importantly, that Marx' advocation lies in the movement for individual freedom and treatment as persons as ends-in-themselves through abolition of class based society and its extensions.
Kant presents a very different approach to ethics in that it is based entirely on the nature of man. The categorical imperative is the representation of an action as necessary of itself without reference to another end(Kant 42). This form of imperative “declares an action to be objectively necessary in itself without reference to any purpose”(Ibid). The categorical imperative in this sense is the manifestation of a universal rule, which is a priori in a human by nature dependent on reasoning, that does not concern itself with purpose or appeal to happiness like the hypothetical imperative. Consequently there is only one categorical imperative that is: “act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law”(Kant 49). For example, if someone was to promise to pay money back to a friend yet they knew they could not pay it back, could the person make this a universal law that it is fine to lie if needed? This maxim seems to contradict itself because if everyone was allowed to lie when in a situation that is dire, then one would destroy the concept of promises and everybody would consequently “ridicule all such statements as vain pretenses”(Kant 51). Kant proposes a kingdom of ends, which is where all rational beings belong to, as sovereign, while giving and receiving laws(Kant 63). The kingdom of ends is based solely off of the foundation of duty, where duty is described as willing one's maxims to be universal laws which is ultimately practical necessity(Kant 63).
The reconciliation of both philosophers is far from difficult when looking at the values they propose in their books under scrutiny. Kant's kingdom of ends, has very similar propositions to that of the Marxist ideals. The first subject one can present on this topic is the denomination of worth that is presented in both the Communist Manifesto and the Critique of Pure Reason. For Marx, the commodity is in present form a denomination of instrumentality and further the productive labourer is a denomination equal to that of the commodities he produces. So for Marx the labourer is not detached from the value of his productive ability and the end value of produced commodities, in fact he is the value of his produced commodities to the capitalist structure. So Marx suggests, that the only way out of this is to treat the labourer as an end-in-itself. Kant likewise, in the kingdom of ends, claims everything has either value or dignity. That which has value can be replaced by something of equal value, therefore that which “has reference to the general inclinations and wants of mankind has a market value”(Kant 64). However, the conditions under which alone anything, or more specifically anyone, can be an end-in-itself does not constitute just a relative worth of value or instrumentality but it constitutes intrinsic dignity(Ibid). So they are both proposing the same approach to a view of the being in question. While Marx suggests that we must treat the labourer, proletariat, or person as an ends to stop perpetuating the act of denominating value to humans. Similarly Kant proposes the same formula, wherein that person, or proletariat in Marx eyes, being viewed as an instrumental “thing” has only worth of market value. Whereas the person who is viewed as ends in themselves reveals intrinsic dignity. It is the approach of valuing a person that constitutes how they will people to view themselves. And this view of people must be out of rational duty to constitute the condition of morality in the kingdom of ends. Skill and diligence have market value, whereas fidelity to promises and benevolence from principle have intrinsic dignity and worth(Ibid). So by both standards of Kantian ethics and Marxist social movement does the kingdom of ends fall into place in practicality.
How then, are the two philosophers so different in their initial approach to the nature of man, and the qualities inherent in nature itself? It is for the same reason they are initially distinct in the approach of equality and ends-in-themselves. Kant believed in god, further he believed in a priori principles that were both universal and objectively valid(Hurley et al 268). However he coins the impure and pure forms of a priori knowledge. Pure is one that no empirical elements are involved, and impure is that which revolves around empirical knowledge necessarily(Ibid). So Kant initially had the presuppositions that there are conceptions related to individual conscience before empirical experience. Marx believed in the abolition of notions of eternal truths, or a priori concepts, and advocated the abolition of religion as well(Marx 102). We can infer appropriately that this suggests Marx did not believe in the universal truths, and further he was a materialist. With further analysis of the Communist Manifesto, one can see Marx was also a proponent of behaviourism. He states “[...]man's ideas, views and conceptions, in one word, man's consciousness, changes with every change in the conditions of his material existence, in his social relations and in his social life[...]”(Marx 102). So Marx is stating that the conditions of material existence in which persons grow up in, consequently shape the mental concepts he attains. This promotes the existence of only temporal and subjective notions of justice and freedom. So he advocates the abolishment of these “truths” because throughout history they were only merely constituted on new bases in post-revolutionary epochs. And for Marx these new constitutions of justice and freedom only provide new opportunities for “class antagonisms”(Marx 103). Kant and Marx would, therefore, disagree in regards to a priori, or objective principles.
To summarize one can see that the support Kant and Marx both initially used to reason for the foundation of persons as ends-in-themselves were derived from the same conclusions. However the overwhelming evidence shows that they were both separate and distinct in the accumulation of their thoughts. Kant was an ethical absolutist, and Marx was a behaviourist that sought to abolish what Kant argued was natural to man. It is an interesting situation where both argue for the same principles applied to human beings and would agree on the end conclusion regarding what ought to be. Yet they provide completely opposite foundations of support to constitute this transition, in both their works, from humans as means, to humans as ends.
Works Cited
Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Pure Reason. Trans. J. M. D. Meiklejohn. Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1990.
---. Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals. Trans. T. K. Abbott. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1988.
Marx, Karl. The Communist Manifesto. Trans. Samuel Moore. Middlehurst, England: Pelican Books, 1967.
Kessler, Gary E. Voices of Wisdom. Belmont, Ca: Thomson Learning, 2004.
Scott-Kakures, Deon et al. History of Philosophy. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, 1993.
Kogler, Hans-Herbert. Review of Transcritique: On Kant and Marx. Jacksonville, Florida and Austria: University of North Florida and universitat klagenfurt, 2004. <http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=1445>
Kant and Marx
By: Brett Collins
The views of these philosophers are so similar in ethical action, and social practicality(I somewhat disagree with my point here now that ive studied a bit more I think that Marx is much more practical but both are looking for similar social practicalities), that if put into the same context in history would assume the role of the most ethically bound philosophers in history. Karl Marx was a materialist, and Immanuel Kant was for his published work, an ethical absolutist(Kessler 82) who was inspired by his notion of categorical imperative. This essay will seek out the similarities between both philosophers theories on ethics and nature of humanity, and also present the differences so they can be reconciled, or perhaps show the distinctions as to why they are necessarily separated in the study of ethics. The difficult task of discussing both philosophers and finding mediums in which they have similarities is difficult because both talked about and focused on different aspects of ethics. For Karl Marx, ethics was more about the impending problems of the economic system and how persons were treated. For Immanuel Kant, the study of ethics was more focused on universality and the approach one has to participate in to become “moral”. Inevitably both will come to similar conclusions.
Marx categorized the economic societies of history as class struggle's involving bourgeoise and proletariats. The system was the problem for Marx, wherein people became “appendages of the machine”(Marx 87). Marx was referring to the economic structure of capitalism. Following this Marx discusses how only the “most simple, most monotonous, and most easily acquired knack, that is required of him”(Ibid) which shows a greater and deeper division of labour that necessarily must exist in the capitalist economic theory. Marx comes to the conclusion that consequently the cost of subsistence that one requires to maintain themselves, and propogate the race(more importantly propagate the number of proletariats), is restricted almost entirely to the cost of production(Ibid). This is the first inference of ethics that one can see in Karl Marx theory on the commodity to production by proletariat correlation. Marx is inferring that ethically the social structure and economic production controllers, the bourgeoise, determine the worth of a human by the production accumulated from their labour. Marx also states “All [people] are instruments of labour, more or less expensive to use, according to their age and sex.”(Marx 88). So one can see conclusively that although Marx does not directly assert an ethical obligation to view persons as ends in themselves, he does so quite well. Marx also advocates that for the bourgeoise society, living labour is a means to increase the accumulated labour, yet with a communist society accumulated labour is a means to widen, enrich, and promote the existence of the labourer(Marx 97). So we can see seemingly that Marx is advocating the enrichment of the individual through a society based on structures of equality in the economy. Some would say that he is not advocating the existence of individuality in any sense but this is untrue. His advocation of individual enrichment is through cooperation and abolishment of private property, or in better terms abolishment of bourgeoise property, where it is characterized by acquirement of property from “exploitation of many by the few”(Marx 96). In fact Marx suggests that in bourgeoise society, the capital is independent and held as individual whereas the living person, or labourer, is dependent and pertains to no individuality(Marx 98). So one must note, importantly, that Marx' advocation lies in the movement for individual freedom and treatment as persons as ends-in-themselves through abolition of class based society and its extensions.
Kant presents a very different approach to ethics in that it is based entirely on the nature of man. The categorical imperative is the representation of an action as necessary of itself without reference to another end(Kant 42). This form of imperative “declares an action to be objectively necessary in itself without reference to any purpose”(Ibid). The categorical imperative in this sense is the manifestation of a universal rule, which is a priori in a human by nature dependent on reasoning, that does not concern itself with purpose or appeal to happiness like the hypothetical imperative. Consequently there is only one categorical imperative that is: “act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law”(Kant 49). For example, if someone was to promise to pay money back to a friend yet they knew they could not pay it back, could the person make this a universal law that it is fine to lie if needed? This maxim seems to contradict itself because if everyone was allowed to lie when in a situation that is dire, then one would destroy the concept of promises and everybody would consequently “ridicule all such statements as vain pretenses”(Kant 51). Kant proposes a kingdom of ends, which is where all rational beings belong to, as sovereign, while giving and receiving laws(Kant 63). The kingdom of ends is based solely off of the foundation of duty, where duty is described as willing one's maxims to be universal laws which is ultimately practical necessity(Kant 63).
The reconciliation of both philosophers is far from difficult when looking at the values they propose in their books under scrutiny. Kant's kingdom of ends, has very similar propositions to that of the Marxist ideals. The first subject one can present on this topic is the denomination of worth that is presented in both the Communist Manifesto and the Critique of Pure Reason. For Marx, the commodity is in present form a denomination of instrumentality and further the productive labourer is a denomination equal to that of the commodities he produces. So for Marx the labourer is not detached from the value of his productive ability and the end value of produced commodities, in fact he is the value of his produced commodities to the capitalist structure. So Marx suggests, that the only way out of this is to treat the labourer as an end-in-itself. Kant likewise, in the kingdom of ends, claims everything has either value or dignity. That which has value can be replaced by something of equal value, therefore that which “has reference to the general inclinations and wants of mankind has a market value”(Kant 64). However, the conditions under which alone anything, or more specifically anyone, can be an end-in-itself does not constitute just a relative worth of value or instrumentality but it constitutes intrinsic dignity(Ibid). So they are both proposing the same approach to a view of the being in question. While Marx suggests that we must treat the labourer, proletariat, or person as an ends to stop perpetuating the act of denominating value to humans. Similarly Kant proposes the same formula, wherein that person, or proletariat in Marx eyes, being viewed as an instrumental “thing” has only worth of market value. Whereas the person who is viewed as ends in themselves reveals intrinsic dignity. It is the approach of valuing a person that constitutes how they will people to view themselves. And this view of people must be out of rational duty to constitute the condition of morality in the kingdom of ends. Skill and diligence have market value, whereas fidelity to promises and benevolence from principle have intrinsic dignity and worth(Ibid). So by both standards of Kantian ethics and Marxist social movement does the kingdom of ends fall into place in practicality.
How then, are the two philosophers so different in their initial approach to the nature of man, and the qualities inherent in nature itself? It is for the same reason they are initially distinct in the approach of equality and ends-in-themselves. Kant believed in god, further he believed in a priori principles that were both universal and objectively valid(Hurley et al 268). However he coins the impure and pure forms of a priori knowledge. Pure is one that no empirical elements are involved, and impure is that which revolves around empirical knowledge necessarily(Ibid). So Kant initially had the presuppositions that there are conceptions related to individual conscience before empirical experience. Marx believed in the abolition of notions of eternal truths, or a priori concepts, and advocated the abolition of religion as well(Marx 102). We can infer appropriately that this suggests Marx did not believe in the universal truths, and further he was a materialist. With further analysis of the Communist Manifesto, one can see Marx was also a proponent of behaviourism. He states “[...]man's ideas, views and conceptions, in one word, man's consciousness, changes with every change in the conditions of his material existence, in his social relations and in his social life[...]”(Marx 102). So Marx is stating that the conditions of material existence in which persons grow up in, consequently shape the mental concepts he attains. This promotes the existence of only temporal and subjective notions of justice and freedom. So he advocates the abolishment of these “truths” because throughout history they were only merely constituted on new bases in post-revolutionary epochs. And for Marx these new constitutions of justice and freedom only provide new opportunities for “class antagonisms”(Marx 103). Kant and Marx would, therefore, disagree in regards to a priori, or objective principles.
To summarize one can see that the support Kant and Marx both initially used to reason for the foundation of persons as ends-in-themselves were derived from the same conclusions. However the overwhelming evidence shows that they were both separate and distinct in the accumulation of their thoughts. Kant was an ethical absolutist, and Marx was a behaviourist that sought to abolish what Kant argued was natural to man. It is an interesting situation where both argue for the same principles applied to human beings and would agree on the end conclusion regarding what ought to be. Yet they provide completely opposite foundations of support to constitute this transition, in both their works, from humans as means, to humans as ends.
Works Cited
Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Pure Reason. Trans. J. M. D. Meiklejohn. Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1990.
---. Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals. Trans. T. K. Abbott. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1988.
Marx, Karl. The Communist Manifesto. Trans. Samuel Moore. Middlehurst, England: Pelican Books, 1967.
Kessler, Gary E. Voices of Wisdom. Belmont, Ca: Thomson Learning, 2004.
Scott-Kakures, Deon et al. History of Philosophy. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, 1993.
Kogler, Hans-Herbert. Review of Transcritique: On Kant and Marx. Jacksonville, Florida and Austria: University of North Florida and universitat klagenfurt, 2004. <http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=1445>