It is of importance it seems to examine Kant in his ethics and epistemology and clarify both in-regards to both being in-theory a project of science (rather than relativism) and to whether or not such reasoning holds sway. Some may foolishly relate Kant’s Noumenon with Plato’s forms since they are both more-than simply are appearances of the world. There are at-least two important and radical distinctions ‘tween the two. The first being that while Plato’s forms exist outside both the realm of phenomena and outside the actually world simply floating around somewhere and somehow, Kant’s Noumenon is simply the Thing in Itself or the world as it actually is rather than how we perceive it. The second being that while Plato believes we can reason out truth and believes someone like the Philosopher King can gain ultimate knowledge, Kant holds that our faculties are always simply reasoning out the best interpretation of our sensory data and therefore having a “direct line” to reality for any subject is impossible. However though Kant is continuing scientific rather than merely “rationalistic” or vaguely mystical dialogues on “ultimate truths” behind things, he is radically different than Aristotle in having a far-more wise and accurate model of scientific study, data and the very nature of human understanding.
Kant in a sense realizes that a definition of a word relating to an animal is not the “thing in itself” but rather our relations and sense-data of that animal. A dog is not “a furry pet with four legs” because there are wild dogs and there are other animals and pets with fur and four legs. But Aristotle seems to be a naïve pragmatist or realist who views the world we see as it is and the words we use as relating to the things we relate them to as themselves rather than our interpretation and everyday understanding of them – so though he is a more primitive predecessor to Kant in some respects, he is completely devoid of a Wittgensteinian nature which we see aspects of in Kant.
Aristotle’s definition of substance and existence is overly rationalistic and though he departs from Plato has too much in common with him. While Democritus Epicurus and others define and relate existence to particular forms of material and material and causal relations, Aristotle relates existence to his understanding of them. That is what a dog is and what things other in simplistic explanatory ways rather than reaching to the fundamental nature of cells and particles. It’s no surprise then that the Aristotelian notion of Science is overly concerned with categories (which is rather simplistic scientific work) rather than delving into the substratum and most basic questions of existence and creating a falsifiable working model of existence that conforms to our sense data; while containing the Skepticism that more data and logical and comprehensive interpretation of the data are always ‘round the corner and therefore what we understand is never (we assume) reality exactly as it is. To contain both the wisdom of Socrates and Kant.
Aristotle is wise enough to give us a teleological account of nature (i.e. nature grows and is growing towards a final form) but doesn’t give a valid account of how this takes place. But not only this, but to say that the telos or any purpose of the tree in nature is simply to be an adult mature tree is simply false. Not taking into account evolutionary biology, Aristotle is ignorant to the fact that things largely exist not to be healthy but to procreate, and that health is merely a sign of higher survival which increases the rate of procreation both in the sense that dead organisms can’t (asides from a few examples found in nature where procreation with the dead takes place) reproduce and in the sense that organisms that discriminate on health will copulate with the healthier organisms in the subconscious (or somewhat conscious in regards to humans) attempt to ensure the next generation of organisms has healthier and more fit rather than sick organisms incompetent to the task of surviving to the point of procreation or not be able to find a mate to procreate with. The end of all or rather most human motivation might be happiness as Aristotle indicates, but most of life is either devoid of joy or spends much of its life exerting energy in a tiring and unpleasant fashion, simply going through the motions according to impulse to continue either life or a certain kind or quality of life – to maintain qualities out of a kind of duty akin to a more Kantian aspect of ethics. This however contradicts human nature, for the best actions the best human beings can perform are not under a sense of explicit duty but the free action of passion. This also contradicts the very nature of sentience and ethical action being free action without any notion of duty but instead a type of virtuous Consequentialism where ethical models are developed and actions are based on a wish to move to an ideal model of the world based on reason – which is actually how Kant founds his ethics. Kant however gives the wrong impression in some cases to use the world “duty” though he’s right in observing that not all moral actions conform to our rational self-interest. Also he clearly applies the Categorical Imperative too strictly and instead must apply it loosely to what a person with certain attributes and goods could do in a detailed and particular situation where the best course of action can be outlined via reason.
An interesting comparison and way of understanding Kantian Epistemology and Means/Ends ethics is the distinction between being vapid and being a certain degree of superficial, or rather acknowledging that superficiality exists with reason but while we shouldn’t reject it we should aspire to move past it. Respecting individuals as an end in-themselves does not mean we cannot use them as a means for our own ends. We all do that every day of our lives when we interact with others. Though Aristotle defines friendship as someone who we care about for their own sake, it largely (regardless of whether there is some truth to that) is someone who we enjoy spending time with and therefore do so voluntarily and not out of some form of ulterior compulsion, sense of duty or force such as it is with society on-large to varying extents the family being the primary example. Therefore we are not spending time with the individual(s) in question for their own sake, though we may value their health regardless of our own, and yet we are not denigrating the individual or failing to respect the individual as an end in themselves regardless of humanities propensity towards selfishness. The same is true of superficiality.
Superficiality despite what society says is of benefit and even one could argue a minor virtue as long as it doesn’t prevent any higher ones. There is an evolutionary imperative for superficiality, this will be seen the moment one realizes that a great many of the mentally impaired (that is people who are more mentally simple than the average American or human being) are incredibly ugly and disfigured physically as well. It is not unhealthy to feel repugnance towards them. If such were not the case, and we breed with anyone without regarding either physical or mental virtues, the genetic structure of humanity would be in a far-worse place than it currently is. Animals discriminate upon the weak and sickly, and it is not immoral in-terms of breeding or of distribution of resources in times of immense hardship to do the same; this of course is not an endorsement for murder, this should be obvious but there is no shortage of idiots who make logical leaps and identify one as a Nazi for giving any opinion that isn’t unconditional support and praise of the impaired and disfigured. Genetic engineering is clearly the answer in the long-term, compassion in the short-term; however, there is no immorality in the honesty of calling a spade a spade and calling those who are deficient mentally to be lacking and inferior in virtue to those of higher cognitive faculties. To continue with my main point, one of course should not be only superficial. One should of course aspire for higher virtues, even ones that seem to contradict superficial instincts. Just as seeing human beings as means to our ends as long as force or immoral coercion is not involved is not immoral but it is healthy and of benefit both to the friend and the person who is befriended to identify with them more-so in certain conditions and to certain degrees – Stoic detachment is also a noteworthy consideration. And though we need our flawed perception of reality to survive, the human mind should always wish to move beyond the inaccurate immediate perception of reality and aspire towards truth both for the sack of benefit and for the truth’s own sake.
On Deontology: This seems as good a time as any to transition to Kant’s ethics – in texts where this essay is separated from the leading one, this sentence should be replaced with, “There seems a great deal to say about Kant’s ethics and the topics and notions surrounding them.” There are things to be admired and abhorred in it, but I think first we must remark on aspects of it which are frankly absurd. Trying to ground ethics on the Law of Non-Contradiction is as foolish as reasoning the Law of Thermodynamics as to whether human beings motivations are primarily self-interested or not. Ethics is a tool used for the benefit of society or for life in-general if one wishes to be an ecological ethicist rather than base ethics as a applying to and considering primarily sentient beings. That is not to say that animals are of no consideration in the field of ethics, but it seems that human beings are of a higher moral concern both due-to their capacity to be cognizant of pain far-more than any other animal that we know of and because the human capacity to think and accomplish tasks of uniqueness, talent and even greatness that is outside the non-sentient animal realm. Animals of course have evolved to do many remarkable things that we are incapable of, however these things are innate in them and not talents that require a certain degree of practice and invoke a certain degree of appreciation; the human capacity for appreciation of life over the base animal is also a consideration for Man’s moral superiority not in action but in value. So clearly the Categorical Imperative is ludicrous and to divorce an action from both its circumstances and its consequences in absolute (though Kant doesn’t exactly do this) is like divorcing a wall from both the ceiling and the floor. It ceases to be something useful and instead is rational material that isn’t connected to anything that means anything to human beings or their lives.
The most obvious example being Kant’s objection to suicide. Kant argues that it is immoral because it is contradictory. It is contradictory because it is done out of self-love while it obliterates the self. The most obvious and easy objection is one can act out of “self-love” and obliterate the self if one is enduring a level of suffering that is likely to not cease until one’s consciousness does. One owns his or her own body and life, and therefore if one wished to end it this is of no moral consideration to others unless one had legitimate obligations to others, like small children that one volunteered responsibility for and knowing that they have no other provider of material, intellectual or moral wealth. If one was a poor provider in all three categories or an atrocious provider in just one then killing one’s self seems to be of little consideration considering one has already been largely immoral and apathetic or irrational towards proper conduct of parenting, and the children may actually receive better nurturing and instruction and therefore will be more likely and capable of living a life of intelligence, decency, competency and dignity.
I stated earlier that Kant did not divorce his ethics (or even the Categorical Imperative which is merely an aspect of his ethics) from consequences. This is clearly the case because all the examples he gives in the book are that of undesirable ends though he reasons that the ends are contradictory and that is why they are immoral. Like the Rationalists who use examples of society for forms of knowledge (as Plato does in the Republic numerous times. The ones that comes to mind being when Socrates is arguing for the nature of the Guardians based on the nature of a good watchdog and that people are clearly not equal based solely on momentary observation of society) Deontologists consistently refer to consequences of actions. Kant says that the primal source or essence of the good is the “good will” or will to do good for its own sake, but how is this will, motivation, psychology or essence moral if not for its consequences? It seems rather than rules, (which could lump Secular Deontologists with Divine Command Theorists who argue the will of God as the only arbiter for morals) the true nature of the Deontologist is holding that principles (e.g. human rights; Non-Aggression Principle; right to education; work and conditions for unfettered development etc) have primacy over consequences. To view that consequences are of no consequence is utterly absurd, but to view that even though we could theorize a world where most live well at the expense of the loss of freedom, happiness or opportunity for some (e.g. slavery, Capitalism, other unequal and unjust forms of resource management and control) the Deontologist would protest that this is fundamentally unjust and therefore impermissible.
This seems an easy-enough concept to swallow and whole-heartedly agree with considering America’s Liberal sentiments of equal rights and opportunities for all; but one with more modern sentiments particularly with notions of justice and punishment should be wary to avoid nodding their heads emptily without consideration if this notion of ethics contradicts any of their previously held notions. Especially with Utilitarian or “vulgar Consequentialist” ideals on punishment. Many, particularly those who believe in Rule of Law mindlessly or contain more Conservative sentiments believe that it is just to incarcerate drug offenders because either the law is inherently just, the law should always be obeyed regardless of whether or not it is just (or as I call it, “mindless obedience to authority”) or it is just because drug offenders behind bars is theoretically of higher value to society than maintaining their freedom.
First the notion that the law is always just. This is obvious relativism. The law changes so are we to say that standards and facts of right and wrong and permissible action change with it? Only the fool who either cannot think for him or herself or cannot apply the dictates of reason to the conclusion of Civil Disobedience still believes in Rule of Law. Then there is the notion that the law should be obeyed regardless of its reasoning or merits. This is too relativism of a Hobbsian nature though of the lesser variety. Anyone of any political background or leaning will immediately disagree with this notion once their values are directly within conflict. For Religious Conservatives: The abolishment of all religion. For Secular Liberals: The eradication of freedom of speech, press, market or other freedoms that are seen as essential in Liberal Democracies. For Anarchists: Contradiction with the Non-Aggression Principle particularly in more obvious and obtuse forms of abuse. The law holds merit only if it is just and sound, otherwise it is to be fought against. And for the final notion under Utilitarian grounds that it benefits society to deprive some of freedom. First off it seems ungrounded for millions are under incarceration in America (more-so in the “Land of Freedom” than anywhere else in the world; which shows just how absurd and based on propaganda jingoistic notions national supremacy and American Exceptionalism are) and their families and friends are likely poorer due-to their absence – at-least in many cases if not the majority. Also even if the premise is to be assumed to take away someone’s freedom so it may benefit society is to argue it is just that we all becomes slaves and work mandated jobs according to societies interest, and are essentially slaves to any form of Utilitarian Calculus – the very notion of eradicating the freedom of some creates a environment where the powerful and wealthy (the minority) perform any injustice for the sake of preserving the welfare of the majority – such being the course of human history.
So we’ve concluded then that it is wrong to incarcerate (or even to punish in more mild ways) anyone simply due-to Rule of Law or Utilitarian calculation, but what of matters of principle, the very thing that Deontology holds to be of primacy? The broader question that is really asked here is what principles are ethical ones? Everyone has differing and common notions of values and virtues, so what are the ones to be respected in society? Well, here we have a distinction between action and reality at-least in the secondary sense. The first principle of any sovereign entity choosing their principles and values must be unfettered freedom, or rather the Non-Aggression Principle. This must be so, for just as no one would volunteer to be forced to obey another’s morals neither should anyone wish to use force to see one’s values be acted upon in their society. The distinction then follows between what society acts upon Voluntary Association and what is truly rational and valuable. If Liberty is truly to be our first value without compromise, then we must hold that any values a society wishes to act upon must be ones that well – will be acted upon. The individual however always has the right to abstain from action and cooperation with the public if he or she disagrees with the course taken. That is not to say what any society chooses to do of free action is immediately right, rational or the perfection in execution of hypothetical correct values and principles – this too would clearly be relativism.
Instead it seems reasonable to conclude that correct principles are those of general utility whether to the individual or society (though there is seldom distinction between the health of the two as Aristotle among others appreciates) as long as these principles or acting upon them does not infringe upon the Non-Aggression Principle. The distinction between this view and Consequentialism being that any action that produces beneficial consequences (of any sort given whatever it is you value) is to be deemed rational and correct, while the Deontological view would be right-action is only that which conforms to one’s given life, freedom, intellect (and various other notions one could insert with certain caveats that would be up to the personal preferences and forms of happiness of the given individual) and to contradict these principles even to further goals predicated upon them is both immoral and a error in logic. This is essentially the morality that claims that cheating is wrong even when advantageous.
Under Consequentialism assuming that one doesn’t become a bunk surgeon and botch an open-heart surgery that one didn’t know how to perform adequately because they cheated their way through Medical School (which doesn’t seem a justifiable Consequentialist criticism simply because of the unlikelihood of the mechanics of cheating all the way through Med School considering the type of exams required. Also of any profession if one is incapable of performing the action then one is likely to be fired and will only be harming one’s self primarily, and if one is capable of performing the necessary tasks for the given job then there is no grounds for complaint on Consequentialist grounds) there is little if any grounds to chastise the cheater. However, the Deontologist following somewhat Existentialist grounds can criticize the cheat for being intellectually dishonest and not living life according to one’s merits which is a value that any respectable person has. We see here both for the integrity of the individual and for his psychological compunction that it is easier and better to act on principles of virtue that produce reward rather than act on the promise of benefit in its own right. The temptation to act on impulse for momentary or false gain is great, but studies show that the greater restraint one shows for acting on impulse the healthier and stable of mind one is.
The question still remains if incarcerating citizens based upon Deontological ethics and reasoning is sound. The short answer is no. The same goes with all punishment of sovereign entities – that is to say adult humans. Because children are by their nature developing and entities of potential it is justified in varying degrees depending on the child and the circumstance to punish him or her if it is likely to help the child in some way. However after a certain age punishment seems ineffective in conditioning the child directly and in their teenage years punishment seems effective only as a means of showing the potential consequences of certain kinds of blunders. For example, it is reasonable to take away a child’s cell phone or video game system if they are doing poorly in school partly to remove distraction but largely to replicate the likely reality they will experience if they don’t perform within a certain level of competency and expectation in society – namely performing the responsibilities they volunteered for of their own volition.
It is within a certain means, or rather to act as a certain mean for certain kinds of ends ethical to not view the animal as an end in itself as long as the animal is treated reasonably well before its death. This is because animals are non-sentient beings that should be treated with dignity but also are creatures of utility; which humans can never be purely. Sustenance is the most obvious example of this, but if animals can perform tasks of utility for humans, as long as the animal doesn’t suffer greatly doing so it is justified to train animals and utilize their talents. Bomb-sniffing dogs however, do not conform to this reasoning since the likelihood of death is imminent in every case – being the reason why humans have a dog do the task rather than a human. Humans can volunteer themselves for work that requires the potential of death. Animals however cannot give consent and therefore it is immoral to kill a larger animal of complexity (what I call an Animal of Consequence) unless it is in self-defense, for sustenance or to a limited degree to manage resources humans are using the main one being space. However the destruction of habitats is disastrous, immoral and lethal not only to millions of species but proving itself one factor in the slow but sure death of our species.
In both cases whether creatures that possess the potential for sentience or non-sentient beings that should be seen at-least in-part for their utility for humans (sentient beings) the creature must be treated with a certain degree of decency to respect the creature’s inherent dignity as well as to maintain our own. Even the most disgusting organisms of this planet are merely products of random gene mutation and natural selection as are we. Since all life has a common ancestor, it seems reasonable to view all life as something that has potential for both sustaining its own existence through its own values (or its own good), improving our existence (as plant life and animals are used to enhance our quality of living and to save lives in ways that no one person is likely to imagine or realize in totality) and to improve the richness and health of the ecosystem it lives in if not the entire global richness and health of Gaia herself. It seems self-evident then that life is to be one of our values and principles to act upon.
That is not to condemn or forbid suicide. If one is to the point that life seems unbearable and one wishes to end their torment and tribulations, they are perfectly both within their rights and within the bounds of morality to do so – unless again others are financially dependent on them, though if the suffering is truly great we must not be too judgmental and remember that our first obligations (though this should not be seen as a justification for petty selfishness or apathy) are to ourselves.
Some may complain if for mature sentient beings not only incarceration but all punishment is unjustifiable, then how shall we justify murderers or prevent things like drunk driving? Simple. If one has proven him or herself to be a threat to his or her community (proven or rather is very-likely to be; making utilitarian arguments that a heroin user is statistically more likely to steal your pocket book is not a valid one) then one may separate them from the community for their protection. Prison you say? No, not prison. A prison is a room of torture where Man is turned into something an animal should not be reduced to. Prison is only justified for the most heinous of those who have systematically imposed tyranny and inequality; and even for them I would recommend death rather than incarceration. I am suggesting that violent offenders be sent to a facility of in-part rehabilitation but mostly a separate society where those who cannot be trusted among the innocent may act as they wish. They would need to establish their own rules, and live as they like. The only essential stipulation however is that they are all banned from having guns and other weapons so they cannot break out (how they will be confined is up to debate. I purpose that just as we have maximum security and minimum security prisons we have facilitates for those it seems likely to rejoin society if they so wish and those who seem to be largely without redemption; perhaps with various gradations if having various levels of severity in the need for security is necessary.) and it must be a place where rehabilitation is at-least possible though it won’t be the main goal in the enclosures of the most violent and psychologically perturbed. To deprive them of the hope of rehabilitation is to deprive them of their Positive Liberty which is just as essential for genuine human functioning and inherent in human rights as Negative Liberty.
This of course is contrary to Kant’s notion of the justification of punishment and punishment being the major focus when a crime has taken place because we are “rational agents” who knew that what we were doing was wrong. First off, to do something wrong that violates no one else’s rights and is likely to harm no one directly is not a crime. And to commit a crime is an act of a mind so warped or mal-nourished of logical and ethical content that clearly some type of aid is necessary but of course the first concern is protection of the innocent from the violent. Kant claims to be phenomenally a Determinist and a Materialist; however, when he delves into the Transcendental realm to say that we have the illusion or phenomenogical appearance of free will we are responsible for our actions and this responsibility holds primacy over the fact we are material and caused beings – this is a fundamental issue where Kant is fundamentally wrong. His epistemology is largely solid but when we see it spill over into his ethics it is much like a Stalinist using either explicitly or implicitly the justification that human beings are nothing hut material beings and for whatever reasons this grounds enslaving them, executing them unjustly and throwing them in the Gulag. Let me make it clear that I don’t believe that Marx would justify such actions but a poor understanding or comprehension of material as this shallow and callow thing without rights or dignity may very-well be reason for Communist abuse of human rights.
If one does not value freedom, or values punishment for wrongdoing more-than freedom, than there comes a point where debate is futile and there is an impasse of values based largely on psychology and upbringing. However, this impasse does not allow one to use force to make others conform to their own values and principles. The Non-Aggression principle (which is itself a total appreciation for freedom in the Negative Liberty sense) is non-negotiable and those who contradict its ultimate verdict are those who require forced prevention of enforced tyranny and slavery. There is however a caveat to the Non-Aggression Principle and it is in regards to the Drunk Driving question which I raised earlier but failed to answer. It may be disregarded to an extent if one is performing action that even though is not intended to harm someone is likely or even quite possible in doing so. Someone walking down the street and swinging a mace for the hell-of-it for example. These people must be prevented from harming others but no punishment can be morally token – unless one considers the forced placement of those likely to harm others in a separate community as punishment; however it should be made clear that it is different than punishment in the sense that while prison intentionally steals liberty from Man and turns him into a slave this separate community will not confine his actions and he’s free to do whatever he wishes though there may be a drop in standards of living considering the quality of the community largely run by convicts but also by Mayors (or council, since there will be many people to work with the convicts and to ensure force – such as rape or shankings – does not take place in these communities) of the Towns of Reform.
In the specific case of drunk driving, the first time a person is to be caught inebriated behind the wheel of a car there license is to be stripped of them and they are utterly forbidden to drive for years. Cars are the most over-valued form of technology and luxury in America and crimes involving impaired driving are one of the few instances where the State is laughably and horrifically lax. You see here that force is only involved to protect the populous. Unlike the Government that would deprive Man of his intrinsic and fundamental freedom and place him behind bars or forbid him from drinking. If drinking is legal (as it is; as should all drugs; as should performing any action that does not place force on an individual or place any individual in a unrequested position of harm or hampering of their quality of life – this can be seen in the rationality of the lack of toleration for any society Anarchist or otherwise to use harmful chemicals and fossil fuels that pollute the air when alternatives are possible for they are proven to create mentally challenged and disfigured children and decrease our general quality of life. If alternatives are not possible, then a certain degree of compromise can be negotiated as long as non-consenting sentient or potential sentient beings are not suffering from such decision en masse. But in general other methods of production and energy use are possible, but aren’t simply due-to the maximization of profits which is the holy right of Liberal Democracies and many dictatorships.) or even if it is not then there should be no command that he or she not continue in their free action even if it leads them on a path of self-destruction. Freedom means the freedom of irrationality and action of our worse nature just as much as it ensures the guarantee of the unrestricting of our nobler and enlightening impulses.
Genetically engineering human beings to remove some of humanities worse qualities is acceptable, but only if it used to improve mankind not to enslave or deaden them to mindless obedience such being the case in Huxley’s Brave New World. This argument can be made on Deontological as well as Consequentialist grounds. If one values intelligence and freedom (as any rational and respectable individual does) then one would wish to follow these values and their principles and not create entities that are lacking in them. The very novel A Brave New World seems a perfect expression of why Deontological (i.e. principle based ethics rather than rule-based or based wholly on consequence) ethics surpasses the Consequentialist, especially the Utilitarian. Though there are some things to be admired in the society, in general one comes away repulsed by these beings utter lack of complexity or the things we assign with humanity. And on Consequentialist grounds intelligent and capable minds produce far-more valuable, materially uplifting and culturally enlightening works for society to absorb in one fashion or another. Machines will largely replace the need for “Proles” in a just society, though it should be stated that in BNW they were already largely at that state but had the Epsilon Semi-morons and others do brute labor and pointless tasks to keep them occupied – while mindless entertainment, poor education, poverty and propaganda (and more general conditioning) keep the populous sedated, incapacitated and obedient in Capitalist countries and in nations that operate under more religious or feudal systems of management as-well.
Overall it seems apparent that one of the main distinctions between Anarchism and Marxism is this interpretation or rather form of Deontology as I’ve described it. To the Anarchist (or at-least the Anarchist who is also a Pacifist which most Anarchists are) force cannot be used primarily to bring about the just society – for a Marxist force is the main tool of doing so. Both in terms of beginning methodology of Civil Disobedience or Proletarian Revolution and in the more mature stages whether it be acting towards a Stateless society or having a “Dictatorship of the Proletariat” to have the State “wither away” (which to me is much like a drug addict saying he needs one last hit before he can clean up his act) we see that force is one of the if not the main tool of the Marxist to establish social change. Most Marxists may have the correct values (largely) and desire rational and ideal ends, but simply not valuing the Non-Aggression Principle and not understanding that violence begets violence is why their attempts are both executed immorally and are largely unsuccessful. You cannot enlighten people using force just as you cannot threaten to smash a light bulb (another one of those idiotic words – or pairing of words – that is essentially one word but is written as two) to have it illuminate.
While Nietzsche gives us a guide for personal liberation with Existential freedom of defining our own values and acting upon them rather than the dictates of authority (which is largely what the enterprise I described is as well as Kant’s when defined as the dictates of reason rather than authority) and the Death of God, his politics and social commentary is almost entirely abhorrent. Kant (despite his numerous flaws; his irrational abuse of Direct Democracy being one that I haven’t yet mentioned. Though he clearly is referring to the non-Anarchist variety that is essentially “Mobocracy” or the kind that put Socrates to death. His critique of this form of mass-rule is warranted though it should always be understood there is a distinction between Despotism by the Masses and Voluntary Association in the form of a communal Democracy in all levels of public life that in every regard respects the Non-Aggression Principle.) however is far-more Anarchist and freedom loving in the sense of wishing to give us the tools to act rationally and justly towards others in a society grounded upon personal understanding of values and virtues free from restraint. He is completely right to say that it is reason that should guide our actions to the extent that is possible or any life form, though it is Hume who is correct in saying (though I understand he believes that moral sentiments are the essence of morality as well – in this however he is mistaken based on the fact that good intentions can very-well lead one astray and are not a guide towards the complex nuance that is ethical life.) that it is the passions and sentiments ungrounded by reason that often triumph – though he is wrong to say they always do so.
Despite the incredible likeliness of this development (though smaller and imperfect forms of this happen quite frequently) it is hoped more-than all other things that with humanity acting on reason and universal justice rather than shallow personal interest we can achieve a society where everyone’s freedom both in the sense of non-restricted action and development and enrichment is seen as the main goal of society both in theory and in practice. The actualization of Kant’s concept of the Kingdom of Ends which is simultaneously the most free and moral society. Morality being what we need first and foremost to attain our freedom. Freedom being an essential in the essence of Man that when given the proper nurturing gives rise to the ultimate end of moral understanding and action. This is largely because human beings innately know what the right course of action in most cases are, but it is the forces of God, Government and commerce that warps men’s souls to believe that force is justified or apathy acceptable. Though cultivation and enrichment is necessary, being evolved beings ethics is something that we must return to using reason and compassion rather discovering like a newfound planet or some abstract logic of categories and imperatives.