We all had a lot to say about Kant's policy on lying in class today; much like Descartes, Kant has built a case that many of us disagree with but have difficulties arguing against.
I agree that Kant's argument that no one can know the future and the consequences should be disregarded is something of a cop-out.
One statement of the categorical imperative says, basically, that we should never act except in such a way that we can also will that our maxims should become universal law.
Kant also says that a truly moral act is done out of duty to the law itself, disregarding the consequences.
But how can you tell that? I have some difficulty understanding how to determine if a maxim could be an appropriate universal law without considering any consequences. If it was permissible to lie, then we would live in an irrational world and no one could be trusted, right? But isn't an irrational world a consequence, and a hypothetical one at that, since surely no human can make universal laws on a whim?
Besides, we already live in an irrational world where no one can be genuinely and totally trusted. I have lied often, usually to protect feelings, rather than an infinitely-more-important human life. Some of those lies were morally justifiable in my opinion, if not in Kant's, but others were definitely not (lying about taking coins from my little sister's bank when I was six or so haunted me for years until I finally confessed). I know that certain people have lied to me, and I assume that often others have gotten away with it. We instinctively protect ourselves (and our families and other social groups) or attempt to benefit ourselves or others, sometimes by lying. Children, in my experience, definitely don't have to be taught how to lie.
I believe it would be my duty to protect an innocent human life if it was within my power to do so, even if I must lie. Of course when I make the decision to lie or not, I couldn't be certain that the killer wouldn't trip on the stairs on the way to the attic, to borrow an example from class, but I doubt that would assuage my conscience as children were dragged away to be killed. That is, of course, a very emotional argument, and I'm sure it's for extra emotional impact that Nazi Germany is often the setting for modern-day variations of this argument.
And if allowing a lie under certain conditions, even very specific conditions, means that the law is now conditional, so what? Why must universal laws exist?
I would not be surprised if Kant has addressed my particular objections somewhere, as they are hardly revolutionary, or perhaps a very careful reading of Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals would reveal that my arguments aren't even applicable to Kant's particular brand of metaphysics, but I'm interested in opinions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I'm not completely sure universal laws exist, but the idea of them is necesary for the categorical imperative. This is so that when one makes an important decision, like telling the nazis that Anne is upstairs, one thinks "does my logic make sense in any situation?". To me it seems somewhat like a check to make sure one is thinking rationally. Obviously it doesn't work in all situations, but it is something to base and start your decision making.
Well, Kant really did intend for it to work in all situations, yes?
I would never claim that the idea of the categorical imperative isn't a good one, but I do not think it is moral to behave according to it, especially in the particular example we have been dealing with.
As mentioned in your post, Kant argues that the moral quality of an action is judged not according to the action's consequences, but rather according to the motive that produced it. A true moral act is done out of duty to the law itself, not for the gratification of doing something good or helping others. It’s evident that you are skeptical with this aspect of Kant’s model of society- and I’m right there with you. Although Kant’s theory is compelling because of its altruistic undertones, I tend to believe that such a selfless devotion to the welfare of others does not actually exist. Whether it is a small act of kindness, like holding the door open for someone, or a large act of kindness, like saving a drowning stranger, the person helping does so out of (at least a little) selfishness. They may help others to feel better about themselves, gain positive reinforce amongst on-lookers, or acquire an agreeable reputation. Even when presented with an extreme example, I am still convinced that a person’s works are not purely selfless. Mother Teresa, for instance, dedicated over forty years of her life preaching to and helping the poor and sick. To many, she epitomizes Kant’s ideal of altruistic helping. But many fail to recognize that helping others is what she was good at. When you are good at something, you want to do it because it makes you feel good and fulfilled. I know this view of helping is pessimistic, but I feel it is reasonable nonetheless.
In response to your last objection about why universal laws must exist, one must first place Kant in his historical context. Kant was writing during a time in which people were searching for something that could apply to all humans, regardless of any qualifications that society may demand of them. That is, they wanted to be able to say something that would be true for all people (or, in kant's case, all rational ones), and in this way equalize everyone in some way. Though we in modern society may find it quite easy to doubt the practicality of his aim, Kant is doing something gorundbreaking for his time; he is attempting to make a statement about possible universal truths that must apply to all of us. In a sense, he is even rationalizing the existence of the world as a teleological thing, a thing that has a purpose. If we as rational beings and as hopeful humans can not establish a purpose or meaning in the world, then by what standards can we define our very existence?
Jesse, I think Kant would agree with you in that truly selfless acts (good deeds for the sake of duty alone) do not actually exist. Maybe they do, but as Kant says, “we can never, even by the strictest examination, get completely behind the secret springs of action” (26). Furthermore, if everyone acted in accordance with the categorical imperative, we would live in a “kingdom of ends,” which Kant claims is only an ideal model of society.
The thing I've seen from Kant and his morality is that even though he intends it for every situation, it only really works in an ideal world. He may have indeed had the ideal world in mind when deciding it. In this world where everyone acts out of duty and everyone's actions can be universal laws, no one would act in a way that would be inconsistent with the categorical imperative.
What I get from Kant is that humanity operates as a function that approaches perfection asymptotically. We can never be perfect, because it would not make us human (because human beings are perfectly imperfect.) However, we can always strive for that perfection.
I would argue that actions done for strictly for the sake of duty do exist, and I will give an example that hopefully proves it.
Scenario: A friend calls you at 9:30 to ask for you to come pick her up from 201 Poplar. You have work from 10-11, and your Search midterm at 11. You planned to spend your waking hours from 9-11 studying for your midterm. What would a rational agent acting for the sake of duty do in this situation? The rational agent would go pick her up, despite the possible costs to himself.
And yes, I was preparing to go pick her up.
I know that we all should treat people the way we would want to be treated, but there is a BUT. I wonder if Kant diminishes the value of this ideal by proscribing it to daily life. think that by saying that we must consider the first formulation of the categorical imperative in daily life, for example whether to tell a white lie, does more harm than good. Maybe the “categorical imperative” should be reserved for the times when it is really important. Yes, everyone would want life to be as ruled by the categorical imperative, but if just one person is doing something slightly different, it is not. For example, what if someone is using you, do you keep helping them? It would be duty, but would it be fair to you? We are not living in a Kingdom of Ends, which is a lovely ideal, we are living in real life and sometimes what might be the most dutiful might not be the best choice.
Post a Comment