A Case for Removing Personal Income Tax

Morality: Objective or Subjective? 

A bar conversation between Immanuel Kant and Michel Foucault.

Kant and Foucault are sitting at a bar. They have just ordered drinks when Kant is shocked by Foucault’s refusal to tip the bartender

Kant: That was rather rude, why didn't you tip the poor chap?

Foucault: He’s hardly a poor chap. I am already paying an extra charge on top of the price of the drinks. They can pay him his ‘tip’ from that extra premium.

Kant: We pay extra for the ambience. And again, don’t you think that denying him his tip is rather harsh? I mean, most of his earning comes from what people tip him.

Foucault: What is ‘harsh’ for you, may just be ‘practicality’ for me, you know? I don’t feel I need to tip him, and further, I don’t feel it was ‘harsh’ or ‘rude’ of me to deny him his tip. Basically, what you feel is wrong, is not necessarily wrong for me.

Kant: That’s not true at all. There HAVE to be some things that are generally right or generally wrong.

Foucault: The only reason you think my refusal to tip the bartender was harsh, was because of your social conditioning. The environment you grew up in and the morals instilled in you by your parents, teachers and peer group are what shape your opinion as well as your understanding of right and wrong.

Kant: My friend, I have great respect for you, but I must disagree.

[Kant stops to take a long, slow sip of his whiskey, clears his throat, and resumes talking.]

Kant: The problem or fallacy with your understanding is that it sets an extremely dangerous precedent. If morality is subjective and relative from person to person, then there is no universal truth, or universal right and wrong. If there isn’t a commonly agreed definition of what is ‘wrong’, then how can we ever know what is ‘right’?
And if everything is relative, does a community endorsing the massacre of another community become justifiable or ‘right’, just because all or majority of its people endorse it? Even though, you and I both know, it is never a right thing to do? Is that also, what you call, social conditioning?

Foucault: I understand your predicament with my reasoning, as well as the precedent it sets. However, consider this -  the fact that our understanding of right and wrong itself is constantly evolving, is proof enough that there aren't a set of principles of right and wrong, only what we humans keep changing and defining as right or wrong ourselves. In fact, I’ll go on to say that philosophy itself can never be objective.

Kant: [almost choking on his drink after hearing Foucault’s last statement] You have got to be kidding me!

The duo were now arguing quite passionately. The bartender, however, was only too used to seeing two old souls at loggerheads over vague intellectual disagreements, and continued on with his work.

Foucault: Think about it. Every thought you've ever had, every ‘principle’ you've come up with, is a result of your experiences, readings and individual deliberation. It is impossible to look at things in a neutral perspective. That is why, my dear Kant, even YOUR philosophy, is subjective in nature.

Kant: Go on.

Foucault: Think of your perspective as a pair of tinted glasses you’re wearing. The tint on the glasses represents your experiences and opinions. Every time you look at the world, you see it through these tinted glasses. Whatever you look at is ‘coloured’, so to speak. The conclusions you draw from what you see are then also, inevitably, ‘coloured’ in nature.

Kant nods, waits a second, quickly grabs Foucault’s glass and spills its contents on the floor.

Foucault: [Visibly angry]: What in the world is wrong with you? Who even does that? That’s not done mate.

Kant: [Now laughing]: Wrong? Wait what is that? Oh, you mean YOU feel that was wrong of me to throw your drink on the floor like that? Because in MY view, it was the ‘right’ thing to do. [He says sarcastically]

Foucault: Ofcourse, it was wrong. How cou-..[He stops short, realizing the contradictory statement he was about to make]

Kant is visibly delighted with his little jestful act, beaming with pride that he proved Foucault wrong.

Foucault: Fine, I get your point. But am not budging from my stance. Am certain in some cultures, or someone somewhere thinks that it is acceptable to spill your buddy's drink all over the floor.

Kant: [Unable to prevent himself from laughing] Because of his so-called ‘Coloured Glasses’?!

Foucault: Precisely.

If we see everything with coloured glasses,
can we remove these glasses and see an non-coloured world as it is?

Kant: Let me tell you a major shortcoming in this concept of yours. You claim that whatever you and I see, and whatever conclusions we derive from it are ‘shaded’ by our experiences, that it is coloured. What if one strives to 'de-colour' their glasses? It is our view of the world which is coloured, not the world in itself. Do you get my point? 

Foucault: Go on.

Kant: If the world in itself is not coloured, that means it is pure. That un-colourised or un-tinted image of the world, my friend, is the universal truth. All one needs to do is take off his glasses, so to say, and look at the world and things neutrally and objectively.

Foucault: That is preposterous!! It is impossible to unlearn all your experiences! You as an individual are nothing more than your experiences and your circumstances.

This time the bartender DOES stop cleaning the whiskey glasses and glances at the two old men, of whom one seems to be taking great pleasure at the expense of the other.

Foucault: [Now getting tired of the discussion] If I may say so, your understanding is based on an assumption that human beings are mechanical in their nature. There can never be a set way of things that humans do in different situations, and hence human behaviour cannot be studied scientifically. Human nature is in itself subjective, and hence an attempt to understand it positively doesn't quite work. If one does that, it is inevitable that he or she would be making large generalizations and would have to depend most of their arguments on vague assumptions about human nature.

In fact, the concept of right and wrong is also, as a concept, man-made. It isn't concrete, and fluctuates over different geographies and timelines in history.

Kant: I concede that when philosophy and morality are looked at on a large timeline, it does appear to be subjective due to its changing facets and evolving meanings. However, when you say something is ‘evolving’, it is definitely getting better, or closer to what it is supposed to be, ie, the end and final form. If philosophy and morality are both ‘evolving’, then it indicates that they are both reaching a state closer to their true form, closer to the Universal truth. So even if we haven’t found a set of principles that we can heavily regard as an objective view of morality, we are certainly reaching there. To sum up what I am saying, I will give you two examples.

Foucault: Am all ears.

Kant: Glad to know. The act of killing is a good example of how morals can evolve whilst still being objective. Thinkers and philosophers much before our time might have justified killing for pettier things than we would today. But this is not because killing in itself is a moral act. It is generally understood that it is a wrong act, the only things that have changed are the justifications for killing. Earlier there were more, today there are lesser and lesser. So the view towards killing in itself hasn't changed much, only the situations that we feel warrant the act of killing.

It has always been understood that killing is an extreme act, the only thing that has changed is there are fewer justifications for it today than in the past.

The second example is that of a cute, little puppy. If I decided to kick a puppy in the face, in front of you, would you not defend it?

Foucault: Defend it? I’d first attack you and make sure you’re down before you can inflict more harm on the poor thing.

Kant: Why though? What if I feel that there’s nothing wrong with it? Foucault, I agree that a large portion of our thought process and our view of the world is impacted by our personal experiences, but to suggest that certain things are considered right based on what you've been taught or what you've seen to be acceptable behaviour, is highly misleading and can open a Pandora’s box with the kind of precedents it sets. Allowing human beings to pick and choose their definitions of morality is a very dangerous game, the repercussions of which they've seen throughout their own history.

Foucault: So what, in your view, is the right way to approach things, if you’re conceding we’re both right and wrong to a certain degree? 

Kant: I don’t know, but am certain that after this long and fruitful discussion with you, I might employ some flexibility with which I approach a certain subject. Isolating the circumstances I've grown up in and what I've learned from the rest of my work could prove foolhardy as they’re interdependent and have influenced each other to a great degree.

Foucault: I couldn't agree more. And maybe, just maybe, I should consider the fact that certain things are wrong, irrespective of the circumstances.

Kant: Getting you to concede something has been the greatest achievement of my life, my work included. [Laughs Kant]

Foucault: Enjoy the moment, it’s not going to happen again. [Says Foucault with a smug smile on his face]

The two men finish their drinks and head for the exit. Just before leaving, he hands the waiter a tenner, looks to see if Kant saw, and smiles to himself before leaving the bar.

The End