Friday, February 27, 2015
In Kant's Defense
Kant's Supreme Law of Morality states that the only thing that is good unconditionally is good will. His theory of morality is based on a duty of what we ought to and what we ought to do is morally right. It is not concerned with the consequences of what you do but rather with doing the right thing regardless of the consequences. In many ways this does echo the Ten Commandments because these commandments do not come with conditions. I think when you take in account the consequence of the action being right or wrong, you loose the real reason for having a duty or moral law. It seems that Mill's consequential beliefs can change the idea of a law by saying the law can change depending on what you think the outcome will be. For instance, we have talked about lying. Is it ok to lie if you think the outcome is better than if you did not lie? Lying in itself is still morally wrong. It seems that Mill's idea of morality is one of convenience and making morality suit your needs. I agree with Kant that all humans have a internal moral compass and they know what is right. This is the principle to act on, the moral duty, not that the consequence of the action is the moral thing to do.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I truly agree with you Denise because Kant is saying just do right completely. Kant theory is so genuine just based on my own experience, when I lied about something I got in trouble deeper but when I learned to tell the truth no matter what. In telling the truth no matter what the circumstances looked like the outcome was so much rewarding.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, and I like your comparison to the 10 Commandments. We should do what we know is right, even if it isn't always the easiest option. We always bring up the example (when we talk about lying in class) about your friend asking you if their outfit looks ok or makes them look fat. While I don't think you have to out and out say that, yes, they do look fat in that outfit, I still think they deserve the truth. You can (and probably should) sugarcoat it and say something along the lines of it not being the most flattering or it's not your favorite, etc, but they still need to be told the truth. For me personally, I would rather my friend tell me if something doesn't look good rather than have everyone think it, and possibly talk about it behind my back. The best option isn't always the easiest, but it is still the right thing to do.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion focusing on the consequences is not the best way to make a moral decision because you never really know what the consequences will be. All you can do is go off of what you think is right and moral and act upon those beliefs. If you 100% know what the consequence will be then yes, it might be better to go off of that, but if the consequence is uncertain then there really is no use in trying to predict the future. So yes, I agree with you!
ReplyDeleteI absolutely believe that under Mill's theory one could make a decision based on what makes the most people happy or the most people sad and it still be morally wrong. For instance, if the U.S. needed to kill 300 people for the betterment of our country and under Mill's theory it would make the most people happy, if the U.S. did not have legitimate reason to kill these people then it would be morally wrong. I have to agree that we as humans are supposed to make decisions based on what we think is morally correct, not for what is the 'greater good'.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. I believe Kant has it right because his idea is to do the right thing no matter the consequences. Even it seems like the hardest decision to make. Mills idea while nice is flawed because you are constantly changing the rules to fit the situation you are in.
ReplyDeletecouldn't have worded it any better, Mill seems to have had all the right answers when Utilitarianism is questioned, but if analyzed correctly, Mill basically supports lies. At one point, it is shown that utilitarianism is a far more concrete and superior theory, but in truth, if it were one of the best theories, it would not support lying. all who have read from the Bible understand that lying, whether it's a white lie or any kind, is not supported nor tolerated by God. Kant seems to understand that and for that reason states that it is up to one to always do the right thing no matter the consequence. As far as everyone having an inner compass however, I slightly disagree on that. We are born from sin and brought into a world of sin, and we are naturally going to sin, we will lean towards evil or sin at the end of the day, than towards good, and some are worse than others, those who just have a desire to make people suffer or a desire to pursue witchcraft and satan. But in the end, people do still have heart and are a creation of God and have free will to do as they desire, and there are many who desire to change their roots and seek a more holy life. I agree with Kant to that extent, that doing good no matter what the consequences is always the morally right thing to do.
ReplyDeleteI also really liked the ten commandments comparison as well as Nadia's post. Too me, Kant isn't saying not to lie to save a life, he is just saying that you can't know what will happen and how far that ripple will reach so you should base decisions on "facts" and not opinions.
ReplyDelete