Hi,
I think there might be something to Freud's notion of Eros and Thanatos,
iow's as humans we posess "drives" that make us want to either kill or
preserve life, and it is the institutions of power that mould these drives
into moral acts or categories. The question is, why do we not kill ? Is
it because we have been taught by various institutions since childhood
(ie, religious, educational, parental etc), that we will be punished, if
we do something bad, so theres an element of fear in morality, or is it
because, the Kantian imperative is simply a matter of adhering to a sense
of moral responsibility, based on human dignity, respect etc.
I think that there is an essential human nature, but the only thing that is
essential and primordial about this nature is its potential to be
constructed into a particular kind of nature. The potential is the basis
for the manipulation. Which raises all sorts of questions
about the human individual. To what degree does s/he have a choice over
who or what s/he becomes. Are the institutions of power etc, all
encompassing.
Your thoughts ....???
regards
Lubna Nadvi
Durban
On Tue, 8 Apr 1997, Ammar wrote:
> Hello,
> Foucault,as also(other) postmodernists,is against metatheories
> and meta-narratives as these tend to be opressive and terroristic.
> But,while accepting that there may not be such a thing as human nature,
> and that a subject is fashioned by the operation of power through
> various institutions affecting him is there any frame-of-reference
> whereby we could adjudge between say,a person who doesn't want to kill
> another because he doesn't like the sight of blood and one who avoids
> killing because he puts faith in the Kantian law of Respect for
> Persons? Ofcourse one might deny any need for such a judgement.HOWEVER
> wouldn't this world be a better place if even though through the
> influence of a metatheory like that of Kantian ethics ,categories
> develop in individuals ,over a period of time,that create in them
> an urge say, to treat others as ends and not mere means?Or would a
> Foucauldian rather believe that an overarching principle,no matter how
> well constructed,can only be oppressive and therefore never of any
> avail? Ammar.
>