English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

In this paper, I analyze the least discussed of Kant’s four examples of duty in the first section of his Groundwork to the Metaphysics of Morals: the gout sufferer who is no longer motivated by natural interest in his long-term wellbeing, and is thus in a unique position to secure his own happiness from duty. This example has long been wrongly interpreted as a failure of prudential rationality, as recently illustrated by Allen Wood’s reading of that example. I argue that the gout sufferer example is meant to illustrate a violation of a duty to the self and should not be confused with mere prudential failure. The example also helps us understand the line between prudential reason and duties to the self. I show that given Kant’s conception of happiness as an indeterminate concept and his hedonistic account of non-moral ends, it can sometimes be more rational from the perspective of empirical practical reason to choose short term over longterm wellbeing when long term wellbeing seems uncertain in regard to expected pleasure. In other words: Kant’s account of empirical practical reason does not rule out as irrational choosing short term pleasure at the expense of long-term wellbeing. However, this is precisely why the gout sufferer’s long-term happiness can be directly morally required and so becomes the content of a duty to the self. To explain how there can be a direct duty to promote our own happiness under certain circumstances I also elucidate Kant’s distinction between direct and indirect duties. Kant’s general conception of practical reason Reconstructing Kant’s general conception of practical rationality is a particularly difficult task. Kant’s main project when he writes about practical reason is to give an account of the principle of morality and why it must be understood as a categorical imperative, as opposed to principles presupposing an existing desire of the agent. For the most part, Kant’s account of non-moral rationality can be reconstructed only indirectly, that is, from what Kant says when he is primarily attempting to draw a contrast between moral and nonmoral practical reasoning and motivation. Kant scholars have tried to reconstruct Kant’s conception of practical rationality beyond his account of moral reasoning. Thomas E. Hill introduced the so called “instrumental principle” into the Kant literature (“whoever wants an end wants the necessary means”).1 Allen Wood suggested that it is possible 1 Thomas E. Hill, “The Hypothetical Imperative”, Philosophical Review 82 (4):429–450 (1973) 32 BELGRADE PHILOSOPHICAL ANNUAL Vol. XXVIII (2015) to spell out a “principle of prudence”, which requires rational agents to take the means not to an isolated end, as in the instrumental principle, but to our happiness as a whole. Wood formulates this principle as follows: “use your reason, understanding and imagination to form for yourself a more determinate idea of the greatest attainable total satisfaction of your inclinations (under the name of ‘happiness’); and give first priority, among all your non-moral ends, to happiness, preferring it to all other non-moral ends when they conflict with it.”2 Allen Wood’s main project is to draw a clear cut distinction between instrumental and prudential rationality. As Wood notes, Kant did not keep this distinction clear in the Groundwork and attempts to reduce prudential reason to mere instrumental rationality; further, he argues that Kant’s conception of prudence is incoherent, in contrast to his conception of instrumental reason, which can be reconstructed into a cogent account.3 Wood’s aim is to provide a modified interpretation that can offer a “minimally coherent story” about prudential reason. He suggests reading the gout sufferer example as a failure of prudential rationality. Further, he makes the case for interpreting prudential reason as a distinctive kind of rationality, as opposed to mere instrumental reasoning. Kant, Wood argues, often gives the impression that what is wrong with the gout sufferer is that he fails to take the necessary means to his happiness; however prudential rationality, if considered a distinctive kind of practical rationality, would consist in giving the end of happiness an absolute priority over other isolated non-moral ends and immediate desires (constrained only by morality). Therefore, in Wood’s interpretation the gout sufferer is imprudent because he fails to assign happiness priority over his immediate inclination: Kant’s imprudent gout sufferer (GMS 4: 399), for instance, knows perfectly well the means to open the liquor cabinet and get at the brandy he desires, and also the means to keep his gout from acting up – namely, to leave the liquor cabinet alone and lay off the brandy. What he needs to constrain himself to do, through the exercise of prudential reason, is to give priority to the end of his happiness (satisfaction with his life as a whole) over the short term end of satisfying a momentary impulse the indulgence of which will later leave him much unhappier. So it gets prudential reason basically wrong to focus, as Kant does, on the possible hypothetical imperatives that might be involved in pursuing the end of one’s happiness. (Wood, “Kant on Practical Reason”, p. 73) 2 Allen Wood, “Kant on Practical Reason”. In: Mark Timmons and Sorin Baiasu, Kant on Practical Justification: Interpretive Essays (OUP 2013). A related debate in Kant scholarship is whether we should take these principles to be normative or merely descriptive. The reason for scepticism about the normativity of the non-moral principles of rationality is based on Kant’s claim that the hypothetical imperative is analytic (GMS IV: 217) and that there are no pragmatic imperatives, only counsels of prudence (GMS IV: 418). Kant’s formulation “whoever wills the end wants the necessary means” also suggests a merely descriptive principle. For positions who deny that the instrumental principle is normative see Bernd Ludwig, „Warum es keine „hypothetischen Imperative“ gibt“, In: Klemme, Ludwig, Pauen and Stark (eds.) Aufklärung und Interpretation. Studien zu Kants Philosophie und ihrem Umkreis. Königshausen & Neumann, 1999. 3 Wood, “Kant on Practical Reason”, p. 69. Alice Pinheiro Walla: Local Desire Satisfaction and Long-Term Wellbeing 33 Was Kant merely confused in this example about what is prudent and what is moral? Did Kant fail to recognize prudential reason as a distinctive kind of practical rationality? I will argue in this paper that the gout sufferer example illustrates a violation of a duty to the self rather than a prudential interest. Kant’s refusal to accuse the gout sufferer of prudential irrationality is significant, and has not been acknowledged enough in the literature. As Kant stresses in the text, the principle enjoining the gout sufferer to secure his health is the moral law, not prudential reason: “there still remains a law, namely to advance one’s happiness, not from inclination, but from duty, and it is not until then that his conduct has its actual moral worth. (GMS IV: 399, my emphasis).”4 In this paper I will take seriously the fact that Kant did not criticise the gout sufferer for prudential irrationality and draw some conclusions about the nature of prudential reason in Kant’s account. Further, I will analyse the distinction between direct and indirect duties, and show that it is central for understanding how and when securing one’s happiness can become the object of a direct duty to the self, despite Kant’s claim that there can be no duty to promote one’s own happiness. The Gout Sufferer of the Groundwork: imprudent or immoral? In the Second Critique, Kant identifies both desire satisfaction and our interest in prudence with the principle of one’s own happiness or self-love (KpV V: 22). This suggests that there is no relevant difference between the two. As Kant notes, “the principle of one’s happiness, however much understanding and reason may be used in it, still contains no determining ground of the will other than such as is suitable to the lower faculty of desire” (KpV V: 24). However, in the Groundwork Kant draws an explicit contrast between the gout sufferer’s immediate desire to indulge in food and drink and the “general inclination to happiness” (allgemeine Neigung nach Glückseligkeit). What can the gout sufferer of the Groundwork teach us about Kant’s conception of prudence? To secure one’s own happiness is one’s duty (at least indirectly) [wenigstens indirect]; for lack of contentment with one’s condition, in the trouble of many worries and amidst unsatisfied needs, could easily become a great temptation to transgress one’s duties. But, even without taking note of duty [auch ohne hier auf Pflicht zu sehen], all human beings have already of their own the most powerful and intimate inclination to happiness, as it is just in this idea that all inclinations unite into one sum. (IV: 399) What does Kant mean by “securing one’s happiness” (seine eigene Glückseligkeit sichern) in the above passage? As Kant notes, “lack of contentment 4 „Aber auch in diesem Falle, wenn die allgemeine Neigung zur Glückseligkeit seinen Willen nicht bestimmte, wenn Gesundheit für ihn wenigstens nicht so nothwendig in diesen Überschlag gehörte, so bleibt noch hier wie in allen andern Fällen ein Gesetz übrig, nämlich seine Glückseligkeit zu befördern, nicht aus Neigung, sondern aus Pflicht, und da hat sein Verhalten allererst den eigentlichen moralischen Werth.“ (GMS IV: 399) 34 BELGRADE PHILOSOPHICAL ANNUAL Vol. XXVIII (2015) with one’s condition, in the trouble of many worries and amidst unsatisfied needs, could easily become a great temptation to transgress one’s duties.” The moral reason for securing our happiness is thus to make us less susceptible to temptations arising from unsatisfied needs and general discontentment with one’s life. We must take into account and avoid possible impediments to morality arising from human nature. This view presupposes

Local desire satisfaction and long term wellbeing: Revisiting the gout sufferer of Kant's groundwork