/lit/ - Literature

Generally I spend most nights with my roommate talking about metaphysics and epistemology, hes not a reader of any phil related content but hes got a great head on his shoulders and is arguably better at discerning and recognizing logical fallacies than me (someone who studies philosophy at uni).

So tonight we were discussing the role of "Moral Perfectibility" that is present in Kant's work, particularly in 'Religion within the bound of Bare Reason' and we arrived at a discussion about the Rationality of Man as opposed to the Irrationality of Animals.

Basically his (my roommate) argument went like this:

P1: Kant can only claim that animals are Irrational by proving that they do not 'act'* with Perfect Reason.

P2: To prove animals do not 'act' with Perfect Reason Kant must know what a "Perfectly-Rational-Being" would act like.

P3: Kant cannot possibly know what a "Perfectly-Rational-Being" would act like.

C: Kant cannot therefore conclude that animals are definitely Irrational.

Look at it with this metaphor: a rat completing a maze with the most "Efficient Path", we can, as outward observers with perfect knowledge of the maze (reality), know what the optimal path a rat might need to take (act) to qualify as a "Perfectly-Efficient-Rat". From there we need only observe the rat and label it accordingly. But Kant is not an "outside observer" to the rat and the maze, he is, in fact, WITHIN the maze with the rat. Kant does not have epistemic access to what the optimal root is and thus cannot judge the rat to be either rational or irrational.

Now I understand that some of y'all would be quick to note that P3 is in contention, I'm not the biggest Kantian but I am fairly certain that Kant did claim that he knew what a "Perfectly-Rational-Being" would act like. I brought this up but my roommate was fairly quick to dismiss it, I was going to ask why but before I could he went to bed; perhaps I'll ask him in the morning.

What are your thoughts? Can Kant know how a "Perfectly-Rational-Being" would act? Why/Why not? I'd love to hear your thoughts.


*(because we cannot talk to them and can only discern their nature through experience and observation; we cannot know if an animal is 'rational' A Priori)