Current Deontology

When we do not suppose that morality is created by thoughtful humans, as opposed to existing in-itself, then it becomes possible to read Kant’s categorical imperative (or his basis of deontology) as meaning that which can occur in no other way than it does. This reading seems to deny the traditional reading which sees deontology as having to do with an the morality of the doing of the act, as to choice.

The question that I have yet to see be held against this latter sense arises when we find that we are using hypothetical reason to address the categorical imperative, or, that what Kant proposes as Pure Reason answering to the Practical. The question should be: why?

When the other why question is never addressed to the categorical imperative involved in the practical thinking approach to pure reason, then we have a deontology which contradicts is own meaning by answering to whether any act is justified morally in-itself, and we view Kant as suggesting that a categorical imperative has to do with an ought. Which is to say, ethics and morality are imperative to human existence.

As a side, Kierkegaard already questions this: what the attempt to iron out self-contradictory motions of reason implies (or at least the half he was able to see given the ideological conditions of his moment).

Yet, when we understand pure reason, as a thing that exists, as really having nothing to do with morality in the first place (morality is something that can be accounted for by the imperative rather than a by-product [Nonphilosophical unilateral duality]) then we can understand what Kant is really saying about the categorical imperative. Namely that it is a thing, an act that is existing or that exists, that occurs in no other way than it could, A thing which is consistent with its category, a thing which cannot occur except how it is. It is a category which occurs the only way it can, and thus affords no purchase by the practical; that is, except in as much as the practical or hypothetical is already being understood through its own imperative of Being, which is to say, as the ubiquitous and proper way of Being, which denotes a proper way of seeing, thinking and understanding, as this proper way axiomatically excludes the act of thought by its definition. 

Wiki says that deontology derives from the Greek deon which means obligation. That’s cool and all. But I also like de-ontology. In the same way I like to use intension (in tension) when speaking of phenomenology and such, as opposed to intention.

We are able to see what we are able to think, but also vice-versa — and not simultaneously.

Have we yet begun to think?

{for those who read the unedited typo version previous to this post: I have no idea where the last comment, which is now deleted, came from.}. 👨🏽‍🚀

Author: landzek

My name is Lance Kair, a philosopher, a counselor and a musician who is being questioned.

5 thoughts on “Current Deontology”

  1. Another very smart post my friend.
    I am not sure if Kant himself didn’t think his morality and the categorical imperative as an ideal or as a higher standard we ought to tend to. I am saying this because I know that Kant wanted to build a moral system based on reason, then universal, as opposed to religious morality which can’t be universal.
    This idea crossed my mind when one day I had a discussion with a highly cultured priest who said to me that he preferred the atheism of Nietzsche to the subtle criticism of religion done by Kant. It was funny to hear it.
    I agree with u that we act upon what we perceive and in this sense, empiricism and phenomenology have their say on this


    1. Thank you. Yes I agree with you, that’s why I say “for his moments“ he was making a Statement of his time, which I tend to see as a time —but I say moment in the sense of place and space — as a period where Philosophy. and people in general I think we’re trying to come to terms with this “new kind of knowledge”. I can get really involved in the philosophy of this also, but I see not a static flat human being that has existed since the time of Plato, say, that we can read And understand that all these human beings over the thousands of years were being able to think the same way, so to speak, such that we are all human, as a sort of stable atemporal category. I see at least philosophy through the ages as reflecting a particular state of being, a particular phase, if you will, of being human, a particular evolutionary moment. I tend not to see it as if there is thousands of years worth of humans all standing in the same room talking to each other. I see it more as the brain, if we could call it that, exhibiting its growth through universal time through various kinds of concepts, various ways of situating the human being in the world. Less as various peoples opinions, and more as evidence of what the brain was able to conceptualize, so far as that exhibits being and world. I don’t know, I’m still trying to formulate this into some sort of coherent discourse. 😄

      But yeah; I think I agree with you because he was seeing something so far as there should be a way to align one’s choices with a kind of “universal imperative of being”. Like there should be a way to align reasoning with absolutely correct moral choices. And I see this in many places throughout history and throughout philosophy and throughout religion and throughout culture and throughout ideologies. It’s been a sort of fascination of human beings to kind of align ones thoughts to some sort of absolute truth such that reason can also grasp this absolute truth in activity, which is to say as cognition.

      But I think the brain (as a sort of evolutionary organism in itself that human beings may or may not be a product of). has grown in a way that it now is able to think of such things in a different manner. A manner that previous moments were not able to really consider as a valid goal or aachievement or teleological end.

      And Innoway that’s what I’m conveying in this reading of the categorical imperative. Because I think it really does bring into consideration what we mean by authenticity, and what we mean by a purpose and meaningful life and how to live it.



      1. The standardization of the way of thinking throughout history, in philosophy and other disciplines, are more of ideals than anything else. At least this how I see it.
        You are right to point out the question of the brain in all this as the adaptation organ. You are also right to mention its evolution. Very interesting post!


      2. Both. 😄. But we can’t reduce one to the other to say one is more true than the other or has some more substance or more validity then the other.
        But indeed. Both ways of viewing the situation are true. I am a product of my time, but I can also extend my thinking through time as if time itself is atemporal. If I stop to say that one is more foundational or one is able to reckon the truth better, then I have necessarily excluded the other.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. i was thinking about this idea, being the product of my time. and i wonder if there is anything universal, apart from this idea.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s