Inevitably, the above concerns regarding the absolutist interpretations of Kant’s vision are directly linked to the politics of representation of reality and the issues of universalism and ethnocentrism in anthropology (see Asad 1973 and 1993, Bourdieu 1977, Fabian 1983, Needham 1984, Pratt 1986, Herzfeld 1987, Clifford 1988, Grimshaw and Hart 1995, Katz and Csordas 2003, da Col and Graeber 2011, among many others). These issues are directly related to the Kantian paradox of a common sense, following the crisis of the intellectuals in the 1970s, which raised methodological and ethical problems between the idealism inherited in the anthropological vocation (a united world) and its gap from the historical reality of ethnographic representation …show more content…
First, the teleological and moral aspect of Kantian thought of an ideal future utopia is set against the dystopia of history, which conforms to the separation of the content of “the world” from the form of “a world” in terms of the “lower” and “higher” realms in the history human thought. Second, Kantian anthropology is a type of practical (i.e. “pragmatic”) Judgement, referring to a specific way of thinking, in which the particular is enabled to communicate with the universal in a twofold manner: a “determinative” way, i.e. local knowledge tested under a priori universal laws, and vice versa, a “merely reflective” way, i.e. the universal law tested according to a particular local or personal reality (as in Allison 2001, 15). And third, the Kantian anthropological project is by definition a pragmatic negotiation with an emerging history-on-the-making, open to potentiality to create a better world, free from inequality and war; to fulfil the Dream of the Child for World Peace. Since for Kant the project of anthropology is a type of “pragmatic” Judgement, on the basis of which human relations and networks are built, and since the essence of Judgement is defined by Taste, it follows that the paradox of Kant’s pragmatic idealism is elevated to a methodological problem regarding the politics of representation and the gap between the anthropological theory and vocation (universalism), and the ethnographic practice and subjectivity (particularity). This chapter argues that the recent turn to subjectivity, following the death of ethnographic authority that emerged with the “crisis of the intellectuals” in the 1970s, exposes the gap between the anthropological theory and the practice of ethnography. This carries wider implications regarding the vocation of pragmatic anthropology and its relevance to the great changes
Even a student that has been educated for only four weeks in anthropology can admit that their viewpoint has changed since acquiring their knowledge. Studying a foreign way of life and unfamiliar customs sheds light on the impact that one’s own culture has on their thoughts. Anthropology is valuable because has the ability to remove the shock and misunderstanding that occurs when examining an alien worldview. The value of cultural relativism, the principle that one culture should not be judged by the standard of another culture, is illustrated in the comparison of Peace Corp volunteer Floyd Sandford’s African Odyssey and anthropologist Richard Lee’s Dobe Ju/’hoansi. A trained anthropologist speaks primarily in the voices of the people and quantitative data, while a relatively untrained Peace Corp worker enters a new culture and colors his account with his own emotional reactions and voice.
In this paper, I will argue that Kant provides us with a plausible account of morality. To demonstrate that, I will initially offer a main criticism of Kantian moral theory, through explaining Bernard Williams’ charge against it. I will look at his indulgent of the Kantian theory, and then clarify whether I find it objectionable. The second part, I will try to defend Kant’s theory.
In this paper, I will critique Kantian ethic’s failure to defend beings disputably labeled “irrational.” The concept of a rational being is a common motif throughout Immanuel Kant’s “Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals.” These beings comprise the foundation of his entire argument. Therefore, for the purpose of this essay, it is crucial to further examine what is meant by “rational.” Kant offers three essential requirements that separate rational beings from their irrational counterparts; the ability to reason, a moral will, and autonomy (53, 49, 41.) Rational beings are those included in his ideal “kingdom of ends” (39.) He defines this kingdom as “a systematic union of rational beings through common objective law” (39.) Since Kant’s code of ethics only applies to those deemed rational, some fundamental questions remain ambiguous. Firstly, in what manner should Kant’s higher capacity beings interact with those “incapable” of reason? Could those who fail to meet the three requirements be abused or exploited? Would this be justified? Some may conclude that Kant has evaded these inquiries altogether.
My central thesis is that Kant would give the child’s life inherent value and advocate that Omelas’ citizens abandon their practices. In this essay I aim to examine the story of Omelas through two opposing filters. One perspective that I will take in my essay is a pupil of Kantian ethics, so that I may use Kantian principles and ideas to critique Le Guin’s work. The second position I will take is that of a Utilitarian. I will respond to criticisms of each frame using points that its opponent raised.
(14) Lewis White Beck, Did the Sage of Konigsberg Have No Dreams? Essays on Kant and Hume (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1978), p.54.
All these theories helped to contribute to the more modern day concepts and ideas about anthropology. Bourgois and Schonfeld brought the great idea of talking about contemporary problems and shedding light on what they are and the faces of who it is. Bourdieu talked about symbolic capitalism and how it is use and the effects that it has. Clifford’s ideas about how to change ethnography really have helped to make modern day ethnographies
What is utilitarianism? Through philosophy, John Stuart Mill aims to answer this question. He asserts that one’s actions must be right if the greatest number of individuals are pleased with the greatest good. The theory of utilitarianism is straightforward. One must always chose the action that will contribute to the greatest good. In any instance, one must chose the action that will promote the greatest good for the greatest number. This principle allows one to decipher any action that may be considered right or wrong. On the contrary, Immanuel Kant and Kwame Appiah challenge the method of utilitarianism as a means to determine which rights countries should enforce. Kant asserts that human rights are individual and universal, whereas Appiah focuses on cosmopolitanism.
After reading the Ethics of What We Eat, one may conclude that there are two normative principles that can be applied when ruling the ethics behind our food (Utilitarianism and Kantianism). Utilitarianism, which focuses on the consequences of actions, emphasizes that actions are right in proportion when they promote happiness and wrong as they tend to reverse it. On the contrary, Kantianism does not concern itself with the consequences in considering what’s right or wrong. Instead, what’s right is not the maximization of happiness, but the morality of the actions that lead to such happiness. Because of these opposite ideologies, using animals for food, its environmental impact, and its impact on global poverty can be controversial.
As opposed to Naturalism, the ethical theory of duty occupies a completely different domain. Immanuel Kant, the major advocate of this ethical appro...
In this research I will discuss the anthropological theorists of Clifford Geertz and of Julian Steward in regards to their ideas of culture, the environment and specifics related to each theorist ideas such as meaning and behavior. A brief overview of their respective backgrounds will be given to frame the discussion and add context to Geertz and Stewards perspectives .Furthermore, this paper will connect the ways other theorists have influenced Geertz and Steward in shaping their own understanding of culture and theories related to culture. And ultimately compare and contrast the two perspectives to each other.
Personal experience and reflexivity should be used within anthropology as a tool to reflect on the culture that is being studied and not a refocusing of attention on the self. Works such as Dorinne Kondo’s “Dissolution and Reconstitution of Self,” use the idea of reflexivity as a mirror in which to view the culture being studied in a different manner. This use of reflexivity allows for the focus to stay on the culture being studied. A move away from this is the new branch of humanistic anthropology represented in this essay by Renato Rosaldo’s “Grief and a Headhunter’s Rage” and Ruth Behar’s “Anthropology that Breaks Your Heart” allows anthropologists to use reflexivity as a way to explore universal human feelings. For me, this is not the study of anthropology as much as self-reflexive psychology. The focus shifts from culture to self. The anthropologists completely understands the feelings of the people he/she is studying. I think that it is rather ambitious to state that emotion is univeral, and I do not think that it is the job of anthropologists to do so. The reflexive voice is a necessary aspect of ethnographic writing, but the anthropologist must be careful not to shift focus from concentrating on culture to concentrating on herself.
Finally, Kant saw the world as he wanted to see it, not the reality of it. In reality human beings are social animals that can be deceived, and can become irrational, this distinction is what makes us human, and it is that which makes us make mistakes. Kant states good arguments in his essay however his belief that people are enslaved and shackled by the “guardians” when he writes “shackles of a permanent immaturity” (Kant, 1) is sometimes absurd when the same guardians are the people that encourage our minds of thinking.
In Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant argues that human beings inherently have capability to make purely rational decisions that are not based on inclinations and such rational decisions prevent people from interfering with freedom of another. Kant’s view of inherent ability to reason brings different perspective to ways which human beings can pursue morality thus it requires a close analytical examination.
The word “right” (recht or Recht in German), as it is used in Kant’s political writings, has at least three closely related meanings. First, “right” is an adjective denoting a property of a certain set of actions: “right actions.” Second, “right” is a noun used to refer to an individual entitlement to engage in some action without interference, for example, “a right to practice my religion.” Finally, “right” can refer to a system of justice as a whole. What follows is a brief description of these three senses of “right,” and of the relationships between them.
Reflexivity emphasizes the point of theoretical and practical questioning, changing the ethnographers view of themselves and their work. There is an increased awareness of the collection of data and the limitation of methodological systems. This idea becomes inherent in the postmodernists study of the culture of the anthropologist/ethnographer. In much of his essay, Marcus shows that reflexivity is an immense area of comment and interest by questioning: Is reflexivity a license or a method? Furthermore, he writes that reflexivity opens up “the possibility for the so-called polyphonic text or the completely collaborative project, but more often than not, it merely reinforces the perspective and voice of the lone, introspective fieldworker without challenging the paradigm of ethnographic research at all (Marcus 193).