I don't really remember how we ended up rationalizing that me committing a crime (probably a violent one, like committing a massacre while on PCP) makes it okay for everyone else to do so. In my PCP-induced madness, I clearly did not follow the supreme law of all morality, but does that really make it okay for everyone else to do likewise? Kant's laws are still in place, regardless of whether or not I follow them. Are you not held to the same moral laws?
Since I am irrational and immoral (whether this is due to PCP or if I just happened to be a psycho anyway), I am not willing my maxim of murder as universal law. There is no intent for my subjective principle to become an objective one, but since I am acting irrationally and on impulse I really would not be willing anything. I may be denying people their freedoms by denying their right to live, but if I am not doing this consciously, intentionally, or rationally, how am I breaking the maxim for EVERYONE? Just curious...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
From what I understood it is the act that causes your subjective principle to become a maxim for everyone, and if your maxim is one that causes chaos then you are acting irrationally. This irrationality can come from the PCP or physcopathic nature of your mind. It is the act that wills it as a maxim rather than you actually wanting it to be.
your act becomes universal law if the subjective and objective line up. The objective is defined as "every rational agent would act this way, if they were acting rationally". Because you are not acting rationally you are not willing this as a universal moral law because the subjective and objective don't agree. QED (don't know if this works here, but it seems like the cool thing to say)
I believe that for Kant the deeper issue is not the murder itself, but the fact that your action has an intent which is not of good will. The fact that you are choosing to kill you are A) not doing you duty which would be not to kill, and B) your will is bad. Also as EJ said you are acting irrationally, so you are not letting that person who you killed live life autonomously thus you are impeding on their freedom... which is immoral. Lastly, the drugs do not change the fact that you are killing, and you tested it to the maxim i.e. everyone could kill we would all be dead, or alone so society would fall, which means if murder was as common as eating you would not be able to survive, cause someone would kill you when you slept or ate food, or even read philosophy.
Jonschwartz says it all in part b of his post. If the maxim of your will is selfish or not out of duty to the law itself, than your actions are going to be immoral and irrational. Consequences (like the million of deaths you could potentially cause by this massacre) don't really matter to Kant. It's all about the motivating principle. BUT, anyway- by willing the act of killing others as a universal law, you are giving everyone the right to kill other people, creating a violent world.
Not to beat a dead horse, but you claim that the maxim exists to not go on a rampage whether or not you choose to go on a rampage. While the objective principle (which any rational agent acting rationally would perform) remains present, the subjective principle is what then falls out of line. Ergo, when you go on a killing spree, you set a precedent of the subjective principle. Kant's "laws" or his "Kingdom of Ends" still exists, but your actions diminish the power of the maxim by which they exist. Thus, when you or anyone else acts in a way that is distinct from the objective principle (your subjective principle doesn't line up) you weaken the structural integrity of the ideal moral world inside the real world.
The other argument you brought up was the idea of "acting irrationally and on impulse I would not be willing anything." I too, had a problem with understanding this for a little while. I questioned whether or not there was a bad will. And in truth, there is. Sadly, it makes my private thoughts on the phrase "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" slightly less humorous as there is still a choice between good and bad will. If there wasn't a choice between good and bad will, then all would be left to chance as to what good intentions were good and what good intentions led you straight into a very very warm place. If you then chose to justify your actions with anything "good," it would defeat the purpose of your bad will (as it would now have been good.)
Also, the idea that you are acting irrationally is concordant with the idea that although humans are perfect in their imperfection. Humans, because they are imperfect, can choose to act irrationally and still remain under the definition of human.
"I am not willing my maxim of murder as universal law." You don't mean to, but it happens regardless of your intention. That is the result of your subjective principle, which may or may not be based upon an ultimately good will. Whether or not you intend to change the maxim has no bearing on whether or not you changed the maxim, if you get my drift.
I agree with ej that the act itself is willing your maxim to everyone. So not only are you willing your action to take the drug PCP itself, but you decided to take the drug. Thus, you decided to will taking the drug, as well as any actions that follow thereafter.
Post a Comment