What does Immanual Kant say about...?

Question

i need this to write my philosophy paper, what is Immanual Kant's philosophy on the categorical imperative when it comes to dealing with children and minor or people under age, specifically his maxim of not lying? i am doing my paper on censorship and some things censored can change their meaning which would then decieve people based on that change. please answer my question, thank you

every where that i have checked, it says nothing about his philosophy of the categorical imperative about minors. thats why i'm asking here

what about in the media? Magazines, Journals, TV, Internet?

Answer 1

For Kant, I think, there's nothing directly wrong with deceiving or lying to a child. Here's why.

Kant's moral philosophy, along with 'Kantian' ethics inspired by Kant, has traditionally had a hard time dealing with children and animals. This is because Kant thinks that all morality is grounded in the great value of humanity, and that all moral requirements boil down to the requirement to respect humanity. (You can see this in the second formulation of the categorical imperative).

Humanity is something like the ability to make practical decisions on the basis of reasons, without being pushed around by one's desires and urges. That is, humanity is our capacity for practical reason. (It's closely related to other Kantian technical notions like autonomy and dignity).

Because humanity is such a sophisticated capacity, children and animals probably don't have it. And it looks like that means we can treat them however we like. We can kill them, torture them, eat them, whatever. After all, they don't have humanity, and morality is all about respecting humanity.

Now Kant himself says that you shouldn't mistreat animals. But he says this is only because mistreating animals might lead you to mistreat people -- it has nothing to do with the suffering of the animal. Presumably he would have to say the same thing about children. So for a Kantian, it looks like we have no direct moral duties to children or animals, only indirect duties which have to do with how we treat 'real' people -- people with humanity.

Most Kantians are not happy with this. There are lots of books and papers that try to take Kant's ethics and stretch it to include animals and children (and the senile and the retarded...). But I think this is a difficult task.

P.S. Kant is a difficult writer and a sophisticated thinker. I might be unknowingly distorting Kant's real view, because it's so hard to know what his real view is. So take what I say as a highly simplified version of what's going on in Kant.

Answer 2

Nice question. I tip my hat to your instructor. You have to UNDERSTAND the Categorical Moral Imperative to apply it in a new situation. And it can be captured in a simple question to ask about any action: what if everyone did it that way? If everyone lied, there'd be no truth, no social stability, no meaningful communication. If everyone defaulted on loans, no one would be offering loans.

So are you asking about censorship or about children? Censorship is easy, a form of lying. Sometimes the truth, which is usually very complex, needs to be simplified somewhat for children, but it doesn't do to distort it. That leads to kids who distrust adults and don't respect authority. There's a serious parallel here with governments that lie to their constituents, don't you think? Remember the fable of the boy who cried wolf? When he finally told the truth, no one believed him. So I seriously doubt Kant would have anything kind to say about Santa, the Easter Bunny, or any of the superheroes. How can a child whose reality has been distorted deal realistically with the world as an adult? Likely he'll distort the world for his own children. Sounds kind of like original sin, wouldn't you say? And the CMI turns out to be the Golden Rule in disguise, too. It's not just do as you would be done to, but as you'd will that everyone be done to. All very profoundly Christian for someone so very logical.

Answer 3

you've gone over my head but maybe these references will help

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03432a.htm
http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/5i.htm