[Avodah] Categorical imperative

[Micha Berger]

On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 11:57:43AM +0000, Dov Kaiser wrote:
: I have wondered from some time whether the categorical imperative finds
: expression in halakha. Perhaps I am misunderstanding Kant's concept
: altogether, but I frame it my mind as follows: Supposing that there is a
: halakhic imperative not to destroy grass, is there a halakhic imperative
: not to walk on the grass because, if everyone did it, the grass would be
: destroyed, even though my individual act of walking on the grass will
: contribute only negligibly to its destruction? This has exercised my
: mind far more since making aliyah 4 months ago. In Israel, a vast array
: of my individual decisions are affected by the categorical imperative,
: because if they were copied by the majority of my fellow Israelis,
: their impact could be huge.

I think RnTK was more on target when she compared it to R Prof Auerman's
game-theoretic treatment of halakhah.

The categorical imperative isn't just a means of deciding what is
moral, it's a definition of moral. Hillel says morality is all various
expressions of "ma desani lakh", and lehavdil Kant wrote that the moral
is that which you would want everyone to be doing.

The objections raised here and on Areivim (do you want everyone to go
into medicine?) are akin to ones in Hillel's definition. If you assume
everyone is equivalent, then if I do not like missing physics lectures,
I should make sure none of my friends miss physics lectures.

There is a level of absstraction from how his situation differs from mine
in both cases. I don't think I need to be the 90 millionth best doctor
available in the US, and if my MD would be that person, he should get
out of the field as well.

Kant's logic is that the moral is that which is the right thing to do
regardless of your desired goal. The hypothetical imperative is to match
a hypothetical goal (if you want to be rested, get some sleep) and the
categorical imperative is that which you would do regardless of your
particular goal. Thus, you would want anyone to do it, regardless of
what they're trying to accomplish.

I don't think that definition of morality is compatible with the Torah.
We see rishonim expound Divine Command theory (whatever Hashem commands
is by definition moral), we have Hillel proposing negative symmetry, the
Ramban discusses moral in terms of qedushah (even beyond Divine
Command), etc... But as a moral theory, I don't think Kant's fits the
mesorah.

I think your closing sentence explains why:
: However, halacha certainly does endorse the notion that some modes of
: conduct are for the elite (the baalei nefesh, medakdekim, or however
: else it is sometimes phrased in halachic literature). Clearly, the
: intention was never that such conduct be copied by the masses (lo kol
: harotzeh litol es hashem...). Wouldn't the categorical imperative,
: as I have (mis)understood it, dismiss this approach, insisting that if
: the conduct cannot be generalised, it should be not be followed?

In short, if morality includes notions of self-construction and avoiding
self-destruction, there is no categorical. Every imperative is conditional
on where I'm holding.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of
micha at aishdas.org        greater vanity in others; it makes us vain,
http://www.aishdas.org   in fact, of our modesty.
Fax: (270) 514-1507              -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980)