What the analogy across human form powered by empathy does is to give us access to an array of values from which we might find it reasonable to respect others. So, for instance, even if someone is mentally disabled -and so not rational- there are still other, human connections involving values and providing reason to respect him or her. For instance, again, his or her sentience.
All sorts of issues come up here. One of them, a very simple one, is that much of respect involves more than what (practical) reason alone sees, at least on the face of it. And Kant, discussing morality, was talking about practical reason.
To respect another involves sensing her, being able to connect with her --to connect enough that one sees, for instance, that it's best to disconnect for a time out of respect. It involves what I call "relational reason". This was the rationally ordered process I discussed when I said on Monday that empathy involves a kind of reason. Relational reason demands more of us than simply conceptualizing what respects another's will. It demands that we respect another's being.
My points are, (1) respecting only (practically) rational being isn't respecting our whole being, and (2) growing respect from our whole being gives us more sensitivity to the plurality of values we have reason to respect as humans. It is more accurate and also more respectful.
So the problem is that Kant shows us it is reasonable to respect every reasoner. But he doesn't show us how it is human, nor what being human makes possible when it comes to respect and moral attentiveness.
346.365: If I had to develop an image for these Earth thoughts, what would it be? Most certainly a child's structure -- wild and built in many directions, left hanging. Suggestive, not a representation, but a series of lived connections, provisional and there for a time (only a time). A structure by which to integrate the complexity of ... "you know, it all. I don't know what it means." Well said! A practical and relational thing, with a little theory built in, so that we can see where we're going if we build late ... .
347.365: There are several views of thought. Let's take a walk around them. One is that thought should be systematic. The unified theory, the grand design. Another's that thought should be exciting -- -- the warm vibe, the interesting "whether". And ... only "several"? Well, there are as many as toads in a pond in summer. Of course. My version's in the middle (of the pond). That thought should be *rigorous* while aspiring to no more than a step sufficient for the day. You see, I live thanks to thoughts. They take time, build up, solve problems bit by bit. They acquire, by shaping, an ethos. They are distinct, but not fashionable. Often rather plain. What is needed for any given day. --
(Isaiah's photo, December 5th, 2010).
