Phronetics and Equality

One main difference between Kantian and Humean Morality is widely recognized--Kant's is based on Reason, Hume's on the feeling of Sympathy. But another important difference has been treated only superficially. Kant's Principle is categorical, implying that everyone has at least the capacity to adhere to it. In contrast, Hume's is contingent, implying that not everyone has the capacity to be motivated by Sympathy. This implicit inequality has important political consequences, since Democracy presumes, like Kant does, at least an equality of capacity to participate in a process that requires recognition of one's kinship with others. So, if that capacity is lacking, Democracy reverts to at least Oligarchy, not merely in the actual governing institutions themselves, but in the processes of selecting who governs. The actual voting rates in the United States, as well as the contempt in which many Amercians are held by one political orientation or another, is strong evidence that the U. S., at least de facto, is today an Oligarchy. Now, the Evolvemental Phronetic Principle, 'Promote Evolvement as much as possible' defines 'as possible' not as Kant does, 'theoretically possible', but as Hume might, 'possible under the circumstances'. On the other hand, this allowance for an inequality of circumstance does not imply, as many of today's Oligarchs seem to have it, an immutability of any given incapacity to achieve a recognition of one's kinship with others, i. e. to participate effectively in a Democracy. Rather, it urges education in the direction of Idionomy, the factual falling short of which is no argument against its continuation.