In Tuesday’s class, we had an insightful discussion about Immanuel Kant’s idea of the goodwill, reverence for the law, and the categorical imperative. As I pondered over these topics, I remembered the first passage we read this semester—Kafka’s “Before the Law”— and I identified some areas of connection between the two that I’ll like to put up for discussion.
The first categorical imperative states: “Act only in such a way that you can will the maxim of your actions as a universal law.” The issue of “torture” was brought up as we discussed this categorical imperative. We all agreed, by Kantian analysis, that torture is wrong because it violates a person’s autonomy. In other words, it inflicts enough pain to take away the victim’s ability to act on his/her will. Thus, the victim is forced to act on the torturer’s will. A somewhat similar scenario is seen in Kafka’s “Before the law.” Before I delve into the similarities, I’ll like to define “torture.” According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, torture is “anguish of the body or mind.” In other words, it is inflicting some kind of torment to the body or mind.
In “Before the Law,” the gatekeeper denies the country man admittance to the law. When the country man peeps through the gates, the gatekeeper laughs and says, “If it tempts you so much, try going inside in spite of my prohibition. But take note. I am powerful. And I am [the least] of gatekeepers. But from room to room stand gatekeepers, each more powerful than the other. I cannot endure even one glimpse of the third.” Now, I believe this statement was to intimidate the country man. First, the gate keeper instills some fear in the man, by stating “I am powerful.” He then informs the man that, although I am powerful, “You ain’t seen nothing yet. There are way more powerful gatekeepers after me.” This may well be considered a form of mental torture since the gatekeeper is somewhat inflicting anguish on the man’s mind.
By this analysis, we may agree that the gatekeeper’s actions were morally wrong. However, my main issue of contemplation is about the action of the country man. Although, he ended up subjecting his will to that of the gatekeeper, do his actions agree with the first categorical imperative: “Act only in such a way that you can will the maxim of your actions as a universal law?” Will every rational human being in his situation act as he did, i.e. succumb to the gatekeeper’s will?
I look forward to hearing your views on this matter.
Well, you could really look at this two ways. If it was the case that the man had gone to the gate in order to acquire the law and had not proceeded to do so because he felt intimidated, then he still never ended up acquiring the law. According to Kant, this would be immoral because the man is not seeking to fulfill his "duty" which is the "necessity to act out of reverance for the law" (which he never got to). On the other hand, if it was the case that the man, in trying to get to the law, was following an already implicit type of universal law that had a sense of autonomy to it by staying at the gate, then the man would be moral, according to Kant, because he is subordinating his will to the universal law.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIf you hadn’t given the definition of torture, then originally I would have said that they gatekeeper’s actions weren’t immoral. He gave the country man the option of going inside the gates and although he put fear inside the man, he still had the opportunity to enter. This then means that the country man’s actions were immoral because he didn’t fulfill his “duty” (Ivy’s first way of looking at it). However, now considering the definition that one can be mentally tortured not just physically, I would say that it is the gatekeeper’s actions that are immoral. Which also means that I view this case through Ivy’s second point. So yes, I believe that every rational human being in the country man’s situation would act as he did. For the fear and mental torture that the gatekeeper evoked, I believe would cause anyone to not go into the gate.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that every man would act in the way that the country man did. It seems, by defining him as a "country man" that he is not as keen as the city-dwellers would be, and is fairly simple. He would not have the audacity nor reason to question the motivations of the gatekeeper or what lies behind the gate, much less who's gate it was. I believe that most people would be inquisitive about this gate and how to get through it. I dont think what the gatekeeper said can count as torture, but rather as a warning, since we do not know whether or not it is true. Fear would cause them to be skeptical and weary of entering the gate, but most people would ask questions to figure out the situation in a more whole way.
ReplyDeleteWhile there may seem to be a mild form of psychological intimidation at play in the gatekeeper's actions, I do not think that is what makes his actions immoral. The gatekeeper's actions can be interpreted as immoral because he lies to the man at the gate in telling him that there are further guards. (It may also be suggested that he lies about being powerful, but although he may not be physically powerful, the gatekeeper most certainly exerts power over the man at the gate psychologically.)
ReplyDeleteSurely Kant would not agree that lying (especially to intimidate) can be willed to be a universal law.
Kafka's "Before the Law" serves as a metaphor to one of the more troubling areas of philosophy, namely - our fear to oppose. I agree with Matthew, that not every person would act in this way. In fact, in order for our class to even function, it would require the frequent testing and infiltration of this gate. Thus, Man has entered this gate before, and will again.
ReplyDelete