LE: Lincoln and Unity

It seemed like we narrowed down the driving forces behind Lincoln's to the family analogy, his understanding and dedication to his job as President, and the by-products of his devotion to the whig party.

Through the course so far, I would say that all three of these played a role in his vindictiveness to save the Union.  With that being said, which one do you think had the greatest influence?

LE: Is Mill really that different from Kant?

Despite the provocative title, we are quite aware just how polarizing the theories of deontology and utilitarianism can be.  However, I noticed some key words in Mill that really evoked the thoughts of Kant.

Clearly, Mill demonstrates a more complex view of happiness, differentiating it from the classical hedonistic view predominated in many Utilitarian theories before his own.  Mill also calls agents to “be as strictly impartial as a disinterested and benevolent spectator,” when comparing his or her own happiness with that of others.  

Mill’s nuanced theory almost sounds Kantian at this point; he has kept the general theory of Utilitarianism, but has revamped a more comprehensive view of happiness, factored in the happiness of both the agents giving and receiving the action, and has called the agent (in a theory which famously champions self-interest and best interest) to be as disinterested and as impartial as possible.

Many prominent philosophers over the years have had incredibly nuanced theories- of these theories, there exist parallel versions, quite popular and very much simplified, and these are often the ones that are implemented in the real world, and discussed by persons with no prior knowledge of the subject.  (Marx and Adam Smith come to mind).  

Do we overemphasize the difference between Mill and Kant?

LE: Using Reason to Defy Reason

Kant explains to us just why certain aspects of his theory are unattainable, and can only be identified by the human mind.  My SLAP addresses this issue specifically-

1.      Why does Kant make claims devoid of the rational human mind while at the same time embedding his ideas within the same realm of practical reason?  

      Thoughts?

t

LE: Kant on the Worthy Purpose of Reason

While I do agree with the idea that, should one give Kant a close reading, the absence of happiness from acting in a genuine moral fashion is probably not entirely true.  However, I did get the feeling at times when I was reading Kant's more rhetorical and eloquent passages, a tragic tone, that perhaps Kant identified with; that happiness (in the eudaimonic sense) is often times is what the most intellectually reasonable and moral agents must sacrifice.

"And we must at least admit that a morose attitude or ingratitude to the goodness with which the world is governed is by no means found always among those who temper or refute the boasting eulogies which are given of the advantages of happiness and contentment with which reason is supposed to supply us.  Rather, their judgment is based on the Idea of another and far more worthy purpose of their existence for which, instead of happiness, their reason is properly intended; this purpose, therefore, being the supreme condition to which the private purposes of men must, for the most part, defer" (Kant, 854).  

Thoughts?