Home > Philosophy > Kant on autarky

Kant on autarky

September 24th, 2003

Leafing idly through Russell’s History of Western Philosophy, I came across this interesting quote (p 683 in the Unwin paperback edition)

Kant gives as an illustration of the categorical imperative that it is wrong to borrow money, because if we all try to do so there would be no money left to borrow

Russell seems to see nothing wrong with this, but it is obvious that the same argument applies to trade of any kind. If I engage in trade, I must be a net buyer of something, say bread. But if everyone tried to be a net buyer of bread, there would be none left. Hence the categorical imperative requires everyone to be self-sufficient.

I assume this constitutes a reductio ad absurdam for Kant’s argument against borrowing. But is it possible to reject the argument against borrowing while accepting the categorical imperative from which it is derived? Any Kantians among the readers of this blog are invited to set me straight on this point.

Update In the comments thread, James Farrell points out that, contrary to the quote from Russell, Kant was talking about borrowing money without the intention of repaying it.

teen pornography
teen porns
teen pron
teen prono
teen pussey
teen scuba
teen tgp
teen thumbs
teen video porn
teen voyeur
teen wet girls
teen with big tits
teenage fucking
teenage girls naked
teenage girls porn
teenage girls sex
teenage lesbian porn
teenage lesbian sex
teenage lesbians naked
teenage porn
teenage porn movies
teenage pornography
teenage pron
teenage prono
teenage pussey
teenage virgins
teenies naked
teens gays
teens mpeg
teens naked
teens pono
teens porn
teens pornography
teens porns
teens pron
teens prono
teens pussey
teens virgins
teens with big tits
tentacle anime porn
tera patrick hardcore
tera patrick porn
tgp lesbian porn
tgp lesbians
tgp naked
tgp porn
thai anal
thai young porn
thailand sex
the best anime porn
the best lesbian porn
the simpsons cartoon porn
the virgins
the youngest porn
the youngest porn star
threesome hardcore
thumbnail hardcore
thumbs naked
tiffany teen naked
tight virgins
tiny virgins
tips for anal sex
tips on anal sex
tits anal
tits blowjob
to young for porn
to young porn
toilet pissing
toilet sex
toilet voyeur
tokyo porn
tokyo sex
tommy lee sex video
too young for porn
too young porn
toon anime porn
toon comic porn
toon porn
toon porn games
toon porn movies
toon porn pics
toon porn videos
toon sex
toon sex games
toon sex movies
toon sex pics
toon sex videos
top 100 anime porn
top asian porn
top asian porn star
top asian porn stars
top black porn sites
top gay porn
top porn movies
top voyeur
totally free hardcore porn
totally spies cartoon porn
trans fat
transexuals
true amateur sex
true virgins
true voyeur
tv cartoon porn
tv cartoon sex
twisted voyeur
uk amateur
uk amateur porn
uk amateur sex
uk hardcore
uk mature ladies
uk voyeur
ultimate guide to anal sex
ultimate guide to anal sex for women
uncut gay porn
underground russian porn
upskirt voyeur
us amateur
us virgins
very old granny porn
very old granny sex
very very young porn
very young gay porn
very young porn
very young sex
very young virgins
victor mature
video box porn
video clips porn
video clips sex
video game porn
video of sex
video post porn
video post sex
video sex
video virgins
videos of big tits
videos of cartoon sex
videos of girls having sex
videos of girls pissing
videos of hardcore sex
videos of lesbian porn
videos of lesbian sex
videos of porn
videos of sex
videos of virgins
vince voyeur
vintage big tits
vintage black porn
vintage gay porn
vintage lesbian porn
vintage porn movies
virgin anal porn
virgin anal sex
virgin naked
virgin sex videos
virgins bbs
virgins being fucked
virgins candid
virgins com
virgins deflowered
virgins first fuck
virgins first sex
virgins first time
virgins first time sex
virgins first time videos
virgins fuck
virgins fucked
virgins fucking
virgins girls
virgins having sex
virgins movies
virgins naked
virgins net
virgins photos
virgins pics
virgins pictures
virgins porn
virgins porno
virgins sex
virgins tgp
virgins videos
virgins xxx
virtual blowjob
virtual porn
voyeur amateur sex
voyeur bikini
voyeur blog
voyeur brazil
voyeur cam
voyeur camera
voyeur clips
voyeur couples
voyeur dorm
voyeur france
voyeur gallery
voyeur girls
voyeur hidden
voyeur house
voyeur masturbation
voyeur movies
voyeur mpegs
voyeur pee
voyeur photos
voyeur pics
voyeur pictures
voyeur pissing
voyeur porn
voyeur post
voyeur pussy
voyeur rtp
voyeur russia
voyeur sex
voyeur site
voyeur spy
voyeur submitted
voyeur tgp
voyeur thumbs
voyeur videos
voyeur vids
voyeur web
voyeur webcam
voyeur wife
voyeur window
voyeur women
washington bbw
watch free anime porn
watch lesbian porn
water sport pissing
watersports pissing
wc voyeur
web virgins
webcam sex
weird sex
wet lesbian sex
wet naked lesbians
wet virgins
what is anal sex
what is bdsm
what is milf
whipping bdsm
white black porn
white lesbian porn
wild black sex
wild lesbian sex
woman pissing
woman with big tits
women anal porn
women anal sex
women bdsm
women blowjob
Categories: Philosophy Tags:
  1. September 24th, 2003 at 18:02 | #1

    I’m not a Kantian explicitly anyway but if I understand your question, I don’t think it’s Kant’s formulation of the categorical imperative which is problematic but his application of it. The categorical imperative works fairly well against, say, theft and murder because theft and murder are zero sum games. it doesn’t work against buying bread and borrowing money (well, at least up to a point for the latter) because they aren’t zero sum games but opportunities for trade.

  2. Shai
    September 24th, 2003 at 21:29 | #2

    I think Jason is right if Kant did say something like that. But, to be clear, Kant believed that exceptions were possible as long as they could be consistently universalized. In fact there are two basic forms of the categorical imperative:

    (1) Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a universal law of nature.

    (2) Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.

    Neither are necessarily easy to understand. John Rawls’ Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy is a good introduction, and you can read it all online if you don’t mind the cyan “exam copy” text on the background of every page. (there are almost 200 pages on Kant, but two chapters on the two versions of the categorical imperative in particular)

    My own opinion is that consequences tend to seep in, but maybe I don’t know enough about Kant.

  3. s robertson
    September 24th, 2003 at 21:34 | #3

    I agree with Jason Soon – the problem is with the application. If everyone borrows money then it is presumably to use it for something – so it is a transfer payment. If everyone borrows, the the money per se doesn’t run out – except for some people some of the time. Nor does the bread run out if one is a net purchaser of bread – something is being ‘traded’ – person with excess of bread trades the surplus for needful other goods the other may have in excess. Ideally, no one runs out, rather an equilibrium of supply and distribution is achieved. What Kant may well have been on about is simply greed – if everyone is super greedy then certain other values are thereby obliterated.

  4. September 25th, 2003 at 03:12 | #4

    Jason seems on the money with this one.
    Kant sought to make each person morally autonomous, ie an end in himself, not a means to anothers end.
    But this was meant in a normative moral, not positive economic sense.
    Thus in positive economic terms we are all, at certain times and places, means to various others several ends.
    Ideally we deliver ourselves to others in a free, fair and forthright bargain.
    The Kantian C-I seeks to ensure that society is a regime for voluntary-informed bilateral (mutual-reciprocal) exploitation.
    It follows that unilateral, fraudulent forceful exploitation is prima facie immoral since it would lead to chronic assymetry of advantage ie the game would be zero sum with one side piling up a huge score at the other’s expense.
    The idea of a just society is to see that the gains from mutuality are fairly distributed.
    In Australian terms, leave a drink for your mates.

  5. September 25th, 2003 at 11:05 | #5

    “Don’t marry the prince, because there would be none left for others of your cohort”

    Is there any biology in Kant at all?

    let alone more modern evolutionary ecological theories…

  6. James Farrell
    September 25th, 2003 at 17:20 | #6

    Kant means borrowing with the intention of not repaying. Borrowing as an institution would collapse if it was generally understood that everyone acts according to this rule. That consequence – not of the individual act but of its hypothetical adoption as a general rule of behaviour – is what makes it wrong for the individual do it.

  7. dsquared
    September 25th, 2003 at 19:30 | #7

    I’ve always found Kantian moral arguments rather ridiculous, but surely this one can be salvaged as a proto-Keynesian economic argument.

    You could argue quite persuasively that in one-period trading for goods for spot delivery, a form of Say’s Law operates; it’s possible to universally will that everyone trade value for value.

    But it’s much more debatable whether any such law prevails for exchanges involving time and uncertainty, so you can’t universalise your behaviour as you’re not entitled to assume the market clears.

    or something …

  8. cas
    September 26th, 2003 at 02:42 | #8

    james has it right.

    here is the relevant passage from the fundamental principles, http://eserver.org/philosophy/kant/metaphys-of-morals.txt:

    “Another finds himself forced by necessity to borrow money. He
    knows that he will not be able to repay it, but sees also that nothing
    will be lent to him unless he promises stoutly to repay it in a
    definite time. He desires to make this promise, but he has still so
    much conscience as to ask himself: “Is it not unlawful and
    inconsistent with duty to get out of a difficulty in this way?”
    Suppose however that he resolves to do so: then the maxim of his
    action would be expressed thus: “When I think myself in want of money,
    I will borrow money and promise to repay it, although I know that I
    never can do so.” Now this principle of self-love or of one’s own
    advantage may perhaps be consistent with my whole future welfare;
    but the question now is, “Is it right?” I change then the suggestion
    of self-love into a universal law, and state the question thus: “How
    would it be if my maxim were a universal law?” Then I see at once that
    it could never hold as a universal law of nature, but would
    necessarily contradict itself. For supposing it to be a universal
    law that everyone when he thinks himself in a difficulty should be
    able to promise whatever he pleases, with the purpose of not keeping
    his promise, the promise itself would become impossible, as well as
    the end that one might have in view in it, since no one would consider
    that anything was promised to him, but would ridicule all such
    statements as vain pretences.”

  9. Greg
    September 26th, 2003 at 16:47 | #9

    So the moral becomes, It’s wrong to borrow money fraudulently, because where would be be if everybody did that? I find it hard to believe Russell could have been so wide of the mark!

    It’s nice on occasion to feel that you’re being put in touch with the historical source of one of your internalized values. My upbringing included a generalized version of the rule: ‘You shouldn’t do that, because what would the world be like if everyone behaved that way?’ It’s a pretty powerful moral rule and one I like a lot, for several reasons.

    It assumes an existential equality among people;
    It can be used as a standard to encourage positive behaviour as well as to discourage negative;
    If it became part of consumer culture, markets could be a lot more efficient.

    Imagine how much more pleasant public spaces would be if, for example, everyone parked their supermarket trolley neatly at the side of the aisle while inspecting the shelves there.

    A consumer application: Recently, the more popular of our two local daily newspapers increased its price substantially while the other remained at the same price. I understand that sales of the two papers remained about the same, and after a couple of months the cheaper of the two decided to stop looking a gift horse in the mouth and raised its price accordingly.

    If each individual had chosen to act as they would like everyone to act, and gone over to the cheaper paper, the price might have come back down again. Better still, the newspaper would have thought twice about the price rise in the first place if it knew its readers would behave this way. Any chance of a bit of Kantian consumer education being introduced into our schools?

Comments are closed.