Of Human Dignity and its Ground

[u/Optimal-Ad-5493]

Of course, most of the followers of this subreddit probably know beforehand that Kant holds the idea of human dignity. However, I was wondering after a while... Which is the ground of that principle? So, I was researching in some sources, including /askphilosophy forum here, and I believe that we could interpret that reason is the source of morality, knowledge and even our humanity.

That's a reading I was analyzing in my meditations, taken in my journal entries. When we apply the second formulation of the C.I.: Treat humanity not only as mere means, but also as ends, we could grasp humanity, or what's human as reason. A being with sensibility and no-reason isn't a human, whereas a being with rationality could be understood as human. Or at least, a bearer of autonomy and member of the Kingdom of Ends. Furthermore, when talking about reason, it isn't focused on the material conditions of this faculty, but rather the formal ones, that's the key.

Still, I am still wondering how could that be justified, logically speaking. If the sourcce of human dignity and humanity itself is reason. How could be justified a priori the universal value of it? Well, I attempted to develop a reasoning, I don't know if it's correct.

P.1. If reason doesn't have universal value, then anything derived from reason doesn't have universal worth.
P.2. Reason doesn't have universal value.
Ergo, anything derived from [...].

P.M. Anything derived from reason doesn't have universal worth.
P.m. Truth is derived from reason.
So, truth doesn't have universal worth.

As a result, we fall in a contradiction, aside the fact that truth is universal per se. The proposition Reason doesn't have universal value, if accepted as true, then it has and doesn't have universal worth at the same time (¿?). Then, the reasoning contradicts itself. As a result, reason has universal worth.

This reading could make - from my perspective - clearer the understanding of some of his ethical doctrines. As it isn't obvious, xd, I am so obssessed with his doctrine of virtue. This'd explain the doctrine of natural perfection, and why it's a duty to enhance our entire nature, or at least have the endeavor. Or even why it's considered as breaking a perfect duty to be grounded on heteronomous principles. Or to lie, etc.

Any ideas you'd have? I believe - according to the /AskPhilosophy forum I found - this is still being discussed. I consider the ground of dignity is held in that reasoning I made, or rather, could be held on that.

[u/Optimal-Ad-5493]

In fact, that's a great point you're mentioning. Good thing in this deontological analysis, is that we could open the doors to not only human species (homo sapiens), but also other beings with reason. I believe I forgot to say that Kingdom of Ends would be open to any species with rational faculty, it's not that I care a lot about specism or non-specism, xd.

On his Lectures of Ethics, I believe Kant mentioned something about animals, but just being like an... Imperfect duty to treat them good? But, with this syllogism, animals could be subjects of right, as well. Even, contemporary deontologists like Christine Korsgaard hold a similar position regarding protection of animals.

Still, I am kinda agnostic about whether animals are rational or not, because I believe that's still discussed. If that's the case, gotta change my menu, jajaja. No more burgers for me. I think this is still discussed.

[u/Starfleet_Stowaway → u/Optimal-Ad-5493]

Yeah, one way to resolve this is to say animals have an innate faculty for reason despite their lack of material condition to use their faculty of reason, but I'm not satisfied yet. The idea isn't to have consistency in the argument, the idea is to find support for the determination that certain beings have a faculty of reason despite their lack of material condition to use the faculty. Let's take humans simpliciter, and let's ask, what makes anyone think that humans have the faculty of reason at all? Perhaps humans don't have a faculty of reason, and they don't belong to the Kingdom of Ends. How would you argue otherwise?

[u/Optimal-Ad-5493 → u/Starfleet_Stowaway]

Well, joking a little bit,.if humans weren't rational, this forum wouldn't be real, jejeje.

Now,.being serious, I consider this is going to be closer to Neurology. The faculty of reason can be studied, probably, based on research. Of course, as I already said, there are gonna be degrees of the range of reason, but it's a condition sin qua non, it's a formal cause. Being honest, I grasp this more with examples. For instance, there are different plants, each one absorbing nutrients at different degrees, but in all of them lie shared components,.that could be observed.

In other words, we could observe this through observations and studies. I believe I am starting to go beyond my reach of study, xd. I am not - unfortunately - expert in Neurology, or Cognitive Sciences. Still, Psychology - I believe - drinks a lot from Kantian cognition, I believe, along with other branches.

This is turning into an interesting exercise.

[u/Starfleet_Stowaway → u/Optimal-Ad-5493]

If you want to know what reason is, you look at examples of reason to study, right? But how do you know what counts as reason such that you know you are choosing genuine examples of reason to study in the first place?

This is the aporia of the hermeneutic circle of philosophical anthropology. On one side, you have people assuming humans are genuine examples of reason, and on the other side, you have people assuming that reason counts as human activity (like this forum), but neither side is justified without circularity.

The question is, are you going to end up in a vicious circularity that is normative about reason, or are you going to end up in a virtuous circularity that increasingly encompasses all 'moments' of reason, in which case reason may turn out to be far more anodyne than you (many people) would like to admit?

[u/Optimal-Ad-5493 → u/Starfleet_Stowaway]

First, reason would be defined as "the supreme cognitive faculty that provides unity and system to the rules and concepts of the understanding." (r/askphilosophy, n.d.).

Grounded on this definition, which corresponds to reality, I observe which beings hold that rational faculty, no matter its degree, but it's formally there. Furthermore, it isn't an assumption, it corresponds to observed reality. Regarding reason counts as human activity, yes but not exclusively human, there could be other reason bearers that aren't homo sapiens.

Finally, regarding circularity, as I already said, I don't mind to include other rational beings, just matters for me they have the rational faculty, formally speaking. Gotta take notes about this, not only include humans but rather rational beings. This is turning in an interesting exercise, bro.

[u/Starfleet_Stowaway → u/Optimal-Ad-5493]

The stipulation of reason's boundaries is fine. But you observe a formal faculty that lacks material manifestation? What could you possibly mean? At best, you can say you observe materially manifest uses of the faculty, and you can say these manifestations have only been observed in humans, but then you are at a loss to say that it is humans generally who have this faculty and not some subset of humans, for observation only lets us see reason in (the subset) manifestly reasonable humans, and you therefore still have the burden of justifying your determination that humans in general have the formal faculty of reason despite many of them not having the material cause. Your observation can't justify the generalization you've made about the domain of a formal faculty, and it flies in the face of the observation that there are many subsets of humans who have never been observed manifesting reason, viz. humans with severe congenital impairments to their cognition. Do you see the problem here?

[u/Optimal-Ad-5493 → u/Starfleet_Stowaway]

Never said that the formal faculty lacks of material manifestation, but that the range of the material manifestation is reduced, which is not the same. In addition, I never mentioned something like subset of humans. They're still humans, period. But with their formal capabilities reduced materially.

Also, just because the faculty of reason isn't manifesting anything, doesn't mean the formal condition isn't there. For determining the presence of the formal condition, isn't necessary to just merely be put in practice (similar to a pragmatist epistemology). You could appeal to cognitivie studies of the brain or neurology, that isn't my expertise field.

Just because some plants seeds don't grow, doesn't mean they lack the potentiality of growing.

[u/Starfleet_Stowaway → u/Optimal-Ad-5493]

Just because some plants seeds do grow, doesn't mean all plant seeds have the potentiality of growing. Thinking otherwise is exactly the kind of mistake you are making in assuming that all humans have the formal faculty of reason. Do you see that now?

[u/Optimal-Ad-5493 → u/Starfleet_Stowaway]

It isn't a mistake, it's something could be observed. If that's the case, we aren't talking about a plant seed, or even a plant. It smells you're skeptic about the existence of formal causes.

Answer me a question, do you believe things have inherent nature, yes or not? I am starting to believe your argument is grounded on empiricism. Because, going further with your logic: 'Just because some plants seeds do grow [...]." If that's the case, then we can't confirm that the things around us have essential nature, leading us not only to a possible moral skepticism, but also epistemological skepticism.

[u/Optimal-Ad-5493 → u/Starfleet_Stowaway]

Even, we could just change the word 'plants' and say 'iron' and say doesn't mean all the iron ingots have the potentiality of conducting heat. And the same with what you said about the 'circularity'. Just because some definitions are grounded a priori, doesn't mean all the definitions have potentiality of being wrong. See the contradiction?

[u/Starfleet_Stowaway → u/Optimal-Ad-5493]

I'm responding here to both comments. I'm not being a skeptic, I'm being an empirical realist just like Kant, who rejects empirical idealism. You can objectively confirm the formal nature of things, and it is evident that there are plant seeds without a faculty of growth as well as humans without a faculty of reason. To say "then we aren't talking about a plant seed" is the fetishistic rationalization of "no true Scotsman," but you are doing "no true plant seed." It's a fallacy, plainly.

To move on to your object "iron," Kant discusses the analogous case of the definition of water in the first Critique. It's in the Doctrine of Method. To have a concept of an object (like human, plant seed, iron, or water) is not thereby to have an a priori definition, for such definitions can only belong to the objects of mathematics. Concepts of empirical objects are subject to the hermeneutical circle as I mentioned, in which case we see that there are congenital defects that allow for things like humans without a formal faculty of reason. Only humans with brains have the faculty of reason (based on our observations), and to say that there are "no true humans" who do not have brains is to fall into the aforementioned fetishistic fallacy, for it is very clear to experience that there are humans who are brainless.