• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

By Root 923 0

that the interpretation proposed here highlights (or safeguards) the heroic nature of acts that agents undergo in the face of extreme adversity. The most natural view to take about Horton is that he is a hero. He kept his word to Mayzie even though the three hunters were about to mortally wound him. He remained resolute when they instead decided to sell him to the circus (and off they all went with Horton being unhappy 100 percent). However, Kant seems committed to holding that Horton is morally required to keep his word in even these extremely dangerous, life-threatening circumstances. According to Kant, were Horton to leave the nest, he would be acting impermissibly. But is this plausible? Can agents be seriously required to keep their word in each and every situation, even if doing so means giving up their lives? A more plausible approach is to label such choices heroic. Acting heroically means going above and beyond what is required. In this way, perhaps Horton ought to be praised as a hero but not blamed were he to leave the nest when his life was threatened. No one can be blamed for not being a hero.

In portraying Horton as a hero, Seuss’s story invites us to rethink some of Kant’s ethical ideas. Perhaps the genius of Dr. Seuss is that he invites each of us to reexamine ourselves and our moral commitments. Seuss agrees with Kant that keeping our promises is extremely important. If you knowingly give your word then you ought to keep it, even if doing so causes you the inconvenience of indefinitely sitting on an egg in a small tree or dealing with the ribbing of friends. But we may demur from Kant’s insistence that we must be faithful to our word 100 percent. Those that do so keep their word, at least if that means giving up their life, are heroes. Yet, so many of us become unfaithful to our word too soon. We often give up when the going gets the slightest bit rough. This is a moral failing, and in this regard we should be more like Horton.

A Person Is a Person, No Matter How Small

The next step is getting clearer about how exceptions to general (Kantian) moral rules might be crafted. What constitutes the difference between praising morally heroic behavior and blaming someone for not doing enough? Answers to these questions begin to emerge upon examining Horton Hears a Who! and Kant’s “ends in themselves” formulation of the categorical imperative, especially when the latter is interpreted via the former. The idea of human dignity or personhood holds the key. In fact, Kant believed that this idea resides at the very core of all ethical behavior. Kant’s “ends in themselves” formulation reads: “Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only.”8 This version of the categorical imperative clearly conveys—in a way that the “universal law” formulation doesn’t—the idea that persons themselves possess a certain kind of unique worth or value. Kant labeled nonpersons “things.” Roughly, it’s always impermissible to treat a person as if she were only a thing.

Accordingly, the conceptual differences between a person and a thing are crucial. Things are objects that have purposes or goals put upon them. They are used as a means to achieve some project. Persons, however, are sources of value insofar as they (we) independently implement purposes or goals into (or onto) the world. Persons, but not things, possess the ability to universalize and contemplate implicit maxims, recognize the difference between right and wrong, and grasp the significance of that difference. Persons, but not things, can perform actions because they are right and refrain from actions because they are wrong (not that we always do). Persons, but not things, are appropriately praised or blamed given how they choose with respect to the moral knowledge they possess. Persons are therefore sources of moral behavior, and, in a way, of morality itself. Kant labels these morally significant features of personhood “being autonomous.” For Kant, the fact that persons are autonomous—rational agents,