The World Explored, the World Suffered Education Issue Nr. 30 May 2020 - Page 7

replaced the religious idea of God and this signalled the Enlightenment's conviction of the importance of political society in the developing of our rational potential (an idea he shared with Plato and Aristotle).” With Kant however his rteflections were seamlessly integrated with his political reflections: “Kant's vision of a Cosmopolitan world suggests that he was not impressed with the idea of the nation-state set forth in 1648 (The Treaty of Westphalia) and this is a major difference between Kantian and Aristotelian ethical/political theorising. In his eyes, the nation-state may have been a necessary stage on the road of our ethical and political evolution but it was not by any means the terminus of the process. Individuals need to find themselves in political environments where they are free to organize their souls in a manner appropriate to an imagined state of affairs in which each subject/citizen exercises their judgment in approving the laws of their community as mirroring the rationality of their own thoughts about the law. This for Kant was a state of affairs one hundred thousand years in the future which would replace the authority of the commandment system of religious systems: a state of affairs in which the organisation of the souls of the citizens was absolutely in accordance with the demands of rationality. The formulations of the categorical imperatives also provided us with a description and explanation of fully ethical forms of behaviour that were logically universal and could function as logical justifications of the forms of virtuous behaviour Aristotle discussed in his ethical theory.” There is a clear link to the justificatory principles of noncontradiction and sufficient reason in ethical reasoning and the various formulations of the categorical imperative: “Kant and Aristotle would have agreed on how to use logic to clarify many of their ethical positions, in particular, the justification of ought statements such as "We ought to keep promises" in terms of seeing the world under the aspect of "the good" which entails knowing the universality of ought statements. For Kant, the fact that many make promises that they do not keep, is irrelevant to the universality of what we ought to do. For him, as for Aristotle, there were people whose souls were not sufficiently organized to understand the kind of universality involved in ought-statements . The argument, for example, that it is acceptable to break ones promise to another because many other people have in fact broken their promises to others, would indeed be a poor argument in both the eyes of Aristotle and Kant. The higher level argument that one person breaking their promise is sufficient to compromise the universality of "We ought to keep our promises" would also be dismissed as a confusion of the universality connected to theoretical reasoning with the universality connected to practical reasoning. Both Kant and Aristotle were very clear about the distinction between intellectual virtues and moral virtues.” Professor Brett in his work “The History of Psychology” claimed Kant to be an individualist and to have contributed to a form of Psychological thinking that was obsessed with measurement. He saw the initiation of this position in Stoic and Epicurean theorising: