Образ человека будущего, Том 7 (СИ)

If we turn to Kant"s categorical imperative, his classic interpretation involves discrepancy between intent and result, that is, to receive a guaranteed outcome Kant"s ethics recommends to define clearly own intention. That is, philosophers inclined to interpret Kant"s imperative formally - as the maximum dependence of the result from linearity and persistency in following certain prescribed at the very beginning rules ("maxima"). Then there come links to the categorical imperative when trying to justify Nazi crimes like Eichmann situation, including Hannah Arendt"s opus [Arendt, 2008] and its theoretical development by Marc Halfon [Halfon, 1989]. Only the deeper researchers point out that Kant is not so formalistic, and it is also important to account the intention, that denotes the ultimate goal, which determines the strategy of ethical behavior and its means. This intention should be at least subjectively recognized as a positive value, and hence in moral behavior it is also important its valuable content. For Kant, as for the any believer, the objective ethics could not be contradictory neither with God, nor with good.

However, Kant deliberately rejects any emotional or sensitive side of moral behavior: it could base only on cold reflection. For this he was criticized by Søren Kierkegaard, who proposed transition from reason moralism to higher, namely religious forms of moral sense [Kierkegaard, 1993], as well as more recent authors, including Max Scheler [Scheler, 1994].

In any case, Kant emphasized that for ethical position required distance, he saw it was possible to win by virtue of a priori position, that distancing judgment from a variety of contexts. However, as we see in the case of ethics nobody can break free of values context that, in principle, recognized Kant himself.

Then the question should be put differently. Moral person should distance himself/herself from the contexts, but obviously not all - that is the most surreal thing would be to seek a completely formal, meaningless position. The very Kant"s imperative include values, as we see, it implies certain ethical values, among which, perhaps, according to Max Scheler, decisive place occupied by Christian values, namely Protestant [Scheler, 1994], but may still be other connotations and contexts of imperative - political, legal and others. Thus, in an effort to achieve moral distance from mindless adherence to a flow of events, we should oppose to this flow models of certain behavior that proved supposedly like "a priori". "Like", but not really! As noted Nicklas Luhmann, value opportunism is appropriate only if we protect the selected value against all other values [Luhmann, 2011] - because, really, there could not be non-valuable position in opposing some values: values are always opposed to the counter-value or irrelevant value. Then and there lays, in our opinion, actually a philosophical interest to the concept of counterfactuality that can be called a priori-like selected context. This kind of interpretation of a priori is close to the term "historic a priori", constructed by Michel Foucault [Foucault, 1994]. Thus, taking a counterfactual position, we choose a semantic context of our behavior - sensual, emotional, instrumentally rational, value, etc. - and give to it absolute value relatively to all other possible contexts - within our strategy to keep the line of certain conduct.

For example, in addition to the mentioned above methods of modeling alternatives it is proper in linguistics to distinguish by analysis of long-past time a counterfactuality of the condition (if, instead of real R happened P...) and a counterfactuality of the consequences (then

Future Human Image. Volume 7, 2017 31

Counterfactuality of the Ethical Norms of Higher Education by Natalia Boychenko

it might happen Q) [Plungian, 2004: 275]. Kant"s categorical imperative based, as everybody tends to see and as he declares himself, on counterfactuality of the condition - that is, if human could not act as being caused only by limited natural factors, so he/she should be endowed with unlimited freedom by God. That is, Kant himself suggests conditions in the name of his imperative - an absolute categorical imperative as unconditional (independent from natural circumstances) he opposes the hypothetical imperative as conditional (provided by circumstances). In fact, for Kant it is also extremely important to fix counterfactuality result (consequence) - strictly ethical adjusted and consistent moral behavior of man as a free being. However, counterfactuality, i.e. in some sense pseudo-reality of this behavior, for Kant is sheer truth that reveals itself not only in the recognition of rather regulatory, than strategic nature of the moral ideal, but in the same regulatory nature of other ideals such as perpetual peace [Kant, 1989].