In “Humanity without Dignity” Andrea Sangiovanni argues that we should abandon the idea of dignity as a basis of our commitment to moral equality and human rights. Sangiovanni considers two versions of the Kantian conception of dignity - the regress reading and the address reading - and argues that both of them fail to meet his desiderata.
My argument, therefore, proceeds in four steps, each of which seeks to show that the Kantian conception of dignity can in fact meet Sangiovannis desiderata. In section 2.1., I will argue that Sangiovanni misrepresents not only Kant’s own regress arguments, but also those of his scholars, and that his arguments therefore do not apply. Though my arguments are in this sense rather negative for large parts, I will try to deliver a positive argument by showing that Sangiovanni in fact has to concede that the regress argument can meet the rationale desideratum. In section 2.2., I contend that Sangiovanni does not sufficiently accommodate the idea of transcendental freedom - that is, the idea that we have to presuppose from a practical point of view that we are free and hence can act morally. As I will try to show, this also shows why the regress reading can meet the equality desideratum. Following this, we turn to the address reading of the Kantian conception of dignity. Here, I will argue that address Kantians can coherently claim that we are owed a justification for however anyone interacts with us, and hence can meet the rationale desideratum (section 3.1.). Finally, I will contend that the address reading can – as opposed to Sangiovanni’s argument - rule out most cases of slavery (section 3.2.).
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. The Regress Reading
2.1. The Rationale Desideratum
2.2. The Equality Desideratum
3. The Address Reading
3.1. The Rationale Desideratum
3.2. The Equality Desideratum
4. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Themes
The primary objective of this paper is to defend the Kantian conception of dignity against the critical arguments raised by Andrea Sangiovanni in his book "Humanity without Dignity". The author argues that both the "regress" and "address" readings of the Kantian tradition are capable of satisfying Sangiovanni’s two central desiderata—the rationale desideratum and the equality desideratum—if properly interpreted and understood.
- Critique of Andrea Sangiovanni's interpretation of Kantian dignity
- Evaluation of the "regress reading" of Kantian theory
- Defense and application of the "address reading" regarding moral justification
- Analysis of the role of transcendental freedom in moral equality
- Rebuttal of arguments concerning slavery and normative justification
Excerpt from the Book
3.1. The Rationale Desideratum
The address reading relies on the idea that whenever we raise a normative claim on one another, we must, at least implicitly, acknowledge that our counterpart has the authority to make normative claims on us as well. The reason for this, as I understand it, is that normative claims communicate reasons, and that the practice of justification and reason-giving itself would be meaningless if we assumed that that others cannot share the reasons we give them – a reason that nobody but ourselves could comprehend would not be a reason anymore, just as Wittgenstein’s beetle in a box could not really said to be a beetle. When I say “you ought to do X”, I assume that there is a reason for you to do X, and that you are able to understand this because you have the same capability of giving and taking reasons as I have. In this sense, impartiality is built into the very idea of reason-giving itself.
Sangiovanni makes two counterarguments against this reading: First, he claims that it cannot explain if we do something wrong when we not address anyone at all, and that it therefor fails rationale. Second, he claims that it cannot rule out one of the most paradigmatic cases of moral inequality – slavery – and therefore fails equality. Again, I will argue that both of his arguments fail.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: The introduction outlines the central research question, presenting the goal of defending Kantian dignity against Andrea Sangiovanni’s critique by addressing the "regress" and "address" readings.
2. The Regress Reading: This chapter analyzes the "regress" argument, arguing that Sangiovanni misrepresents Kant’s original position and demonstrating that the theory can indeed satisfy the necessary desiderata when accounting for transcendental freedom.
2.1. The Rationale Desideratum: This section provides a detailed examination of why the regress argument, correctly interpreted, successfully meets the rationale desideratum regarding the source of human dignity.
2.2. The Equality Desideratum: This section argues that transcendental freedom serves as the equalizing factor that allows the regress reading to satisfy the equality desideratum.
3. The Address Reading: This chapter shifts focus to the "address" reading, asserting that the act of reason-giving inherently presupposes moral equality and authority between individuals.
3.1. The Rationale Desideratum: This section defends the address reading against the claim that it fails to provide a sufficient rationale for human dignity.
3.2. The Equality Desideratum: This section addresses the critique regarding slavery, arguing that the address reading can successfully rule out such practices by requiring shared justifications.
4. Conclusion: The conclusion summarizes the main findings, reiterating that Kantian theories of dignity remain robust despite Sangiovanni’s challenges.
Keywords
Kantian Dignity, Andrea Sangiovanni, Humanity without Dignity, Regress Reading, Address Reading, Rationale Desideratum, Equality Desideratum, Moral Equality, Transcendental Freedom, Reason-giving, Justification, Autonomy, Human Rights, Kantian Ethics, Slavery.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental goal of this paper?
The paper aims to defend the Kantian conception of dignity against the criticisms put forward by Andrea Sangiovanni in his book "Humanity without Dignity".
Which specific versions of the Kantian conception of dignity are analyzed?
The author focuses on two specific versions: the "regress reading" and the "address reading".
What are the two desiderata that a theory of dignity must meet according to Sangiovanni?
A theory must meet the "rationale desideratum" (explaining why we have dignity) and the "equality desideratum" (explaining in what sense we are equal in dignity).
What role does transcendental freedom play in the author's argument?
The author argues that transcendental freedom is a practical necessity and the key to satisfying both the rationale and equality desiderata within the Kantian framework.
How does the address reading address the concept of moral equality?
It argues that the act of giving reasons to another person implies an acknowledgement of their status as an equal agent capable of understanding and engaging in justification.
What is the author's primary methodology?
The author uses a analytical philosophical approach, focusing on exegetical critique and the normative consistency of Kantian theory in response to contemporary challenges.
How does the author refute Sangiovanni’s claim regarding slavery?
The author argues that slavery relies on justifications that cannot be shared mutually between master and slave, thus failing the address reading's requirement for valid justification, which makes it inherently wrong.
Why does the author believe Sangiovanni misrepresents Kant?
The author claims that Sangiovanni relies on "straw men" and fails to consult Kant's original writings sufficiently, leading to a confusion of arguments and an overinterpretation of key concepts.
What is meant by the "regress reading"?
It refers to arguments that seek to infer an unconditional value (dignity) from the recognition of something as conditional, typically centered around the power of rational choice.
Does the author conclude that Kantianism is incompatible with Sangiovanni's broader ideas?
No, the author suggests that while Kantian dignity stands, it does not necessarily force a conclusion that the ideas Sangiovanni presents in the rest of his book are inherently incompatible with Kantianism.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Maximilian Strietholt (Autor:in), 2020, In Defence of Kantian Dignity, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1187549
