The necessity of Rationality?

As we've read through Kant he puts a large emphasis on rational and irrational actions.  Kant lays the founding for his work and on morality in wether an action is rational as well as it's being done for duty.  Rational people will make good, moral decisions where an irrational person would make a bad, immoral decision according to Kant.  Can we say this is always true though?  Is someone who acts irrationally always immoral?

In class we looked at Kant and what he believes.  He states that an action is rational if the person committing the action can will it as a universal maxim.  This meaning that a rational person could not will for it to be ok to lie because it would create a community of chaos where we cannot know if we are being told the truth or a lie.  Also, an action is moral if performed only for the sake of duty.  We explored this in Dr. Johnson's example of Dev helping an old woman across the street for twenty dollars, and Mark helping the old woman across the street out of duty even with a large range of problems.

The example of having Ann Frank in the attic of your house and the Gestapo were at the door asking if you had any Jews there was posed, and the question "would it be rational and moral to tell the truth or to lie" arose.  A normal person would say that it is rational to lie to preserve the life of another human being.  Kant, on the other hand, says it is moral and rational to tell the truth.  He declares this true for several reasons.  First, he states that we cannot know the future.  We cannot be sure of what will happen to her and therefore don't know if she'll be killed.  Second, as stated above, a rational person cannot will it to be ok to lie, even under certain circumstances.  Third, similar to the first reason, Anne Frank could have left the attic and be leaving in the direction you point the Gestapo.

During class I posed the question of "is taking a risk irrational or rational?"  We looked at someone diving in a lake to save a drowning person, even though they might be drowned by the struggling person.  While this was eventually discredited by saying that we cannot know the future and can't look at consequences, it doesn't necessarily take into account every situation of risk.  If one takes a financial risk would it be for duty or personal gain?  One could risk money out of duty for family to provide better, or they could risk it in hopes to gain more for themselves.  These are two opposing sides, one duty and one for personal gain.

  So are there actions that can be irrational and still be moral.  Also, can a person perform a rationally immoral action?

Locke and Slavery

John Locke was a British philosopher who was very involved with the governance of the colonies and the political conflicts of England. In 1689, Locke published The Two Treaties of Government in which he discusses political philosophy. Furthermore, Locke describes his theories of the natural rights of humans in a civil society. The fourth chapter of this text is dedicated to his theory of the existence of slavery.

In this chapter Locke states that one’s “natural liberty” allows for one to be free from any worldly power. It is the right of the individual to only be ruled by the law of nature. Moreover, an individual cannot be ruled by the will or legislative power of man. Therefore, slavery should not exist in a civil society. One can only be controlled by a societal legislative power if the individual gives their consent. Locke further claims that individuals are so concerned with self-preservation that they cannot voluntarily give up their freedom to any form of an absolute power.

Locke declares that the only state of slavery exists in a “state of war”. He defines a “state of war” as hostility that is brought about by an individual’s attempt to destroy another’s life. The relationship between the conqueror and the captive involves slavery because the captive has been overtaken forcefully by the conqueror.

In the eighth chapter Locke emphasizes that one of the basic characteristics of a civil society is being governed by the majority of that society. “The only way, whereby any one divests himself of his natural liberty, and puts on the bonds of civil society, is by agreeing with other men to join and unite into a community…”. By joining a society, an individual gives their consent to be governed. Therefore, one has to accept and obey the decisions of the majority. Is it not possible that slavery can exist in a civil society in which slavery is in favor of the majority?

Bent out of shape by society's pliers

Although Rousseau is mostly noted today for his influence on political philosophy, I find him to be a compelling figure because of his image of human nature. His ideas may be considered “paranoid” and “flamboyant”, but nonetheless I appreciate and (for the most part) agree with his notion that all humans are innately good until society exerts evil influences on the individual. Also, Kant’s moral theory overshadowed Rousseau’s as far as our class discussions go, so I thought it was necessary to finally dissect Rousseau’s thought on the self and society.

To understand Rousseau’s argument, it is first important to understand the key components of the self. Rousseau defines the inner self as a distinctly moral and unique part of an individual. To discover the self, one must be guided by their feelings rather than reason. He says that “a man who thinks is a depraved animal” and “if all the philosophers in the world should prove me wrong, all that is important is that you feel that I am right.” Because emotions are one thing we do have control over, I think Rousseau’s point is valid even though he dismisses the importance of reason. If someone does something to make you mad, you can control whether you lash out and feel angry or stay calm and take a few deep breaths. He also argues that the goodness of the self should define us rather than our actions. This is reminiscent of Luther’s idea that a person is justified by something greater (in his case it was faith) than just their deeds. I agree with Rousseau (and Luther) because good people can do bad things, however I do not believe it makes them any less of a good person. People, even the most moral and obedient, make mistakes and have poor judgment every once in a while.

At the same time Rousseau explains the goodness of the self, he blames society for corrupting this innate morality found in everyone. Rousseau says, “ Nature made man happy and good, and society depraves him and makes him miserable”. To alleviate this misery he suggests that humans should rid themselves of the artificialities imposed on them by culture, and revert back to the ways of free and natural or else you will be like one of these savages that Rousseau describes:

“He enjoys not a moment’s relaxation; and what is yet the stranger, the less natural and pressing his wants, the more headstrong are his passions, and still worse, the more he has it in his power to gratify them; so that after a long course of prosperity, after having swallowed up treasures and ruined multitudes the hero ends up cutting every throat till he finds himself, at last, sole master of the world. Such is…the secret aspirations in the heart of every civilized man.”

Although this quote is intense, Rousseau (and I) just want others to realize that we (referring to the moral “self”) are better than we appear (referring to tainted society).

Racism Continued

I wanted to add this as a comment to John's post but it got too long and is a bit of a tangent.
Personally, I believe that modern day racism is a product of racism. Today, besides a small amount of ignorant, simple-minded racist bigots, most people realize that all races of people are fundamentally the same. However, racism is still a problem. Why? I believe the cause is the result.
The subject of race is never far from the tongues of any Americans. Issues of race and racism are always on our mind, especially now that people have forced it upon the presidential race. The driving factor of this is extremist groups that scream RACISM at every chance. The most obvious example is Al Sharpton but there are examples for every race, even whites. If a white cop tasers a black or latino or asian then its because of their race, not because they broke a law. Now that white is practically the minority more of the reverse is seen. I know my grandpa argues that schools are racist towards whites now and focus more on the education of non-whites. It's whites being racist towards nonwhites, blacks being racist towards nonblacks, etc. that is the problem.
Another thing is the idea that "I have to look out for my own race". In the newspaper in my hometown there was an article about how a high ranking official for the NAACP was quoted saying basically that if Obama wasn't black he would not vote for him, but he cannot pass up voting for a black man. The article pointed out that if any white person said that he would be crucified. I'm also sure there are white people that are voting for McCain because they do not want to vote for a black person.
This is complete bullshit. The fact that people relate everything to race is what continues the monotonous idiotic struggle of one race versus another. It's the same old argument over and over again. The fact that you are white has nothing to do with why the black cop tased you, it is because you ran from him with a bag of weed hanging out of your pocket. Claiming racism every time something like that happens keeps it on the minds of all the public. It also makes every non-white person who sees the headline "White male gets tasered by black cop while saying 'don't tase me bro' " assume, dang he's going to claim racism, isn't he? And so the saga continues. Just like the fact that some hip-hop station DJ's say "Vote for a brother, vote Obama". There is absolutely no need for it, his skin color doesn't affect his politics, but now people assume every black person is voting for Obama just because he is black, not based on his politics.
Once people get over the color of their skin and actually pay attention this problem can't end.

Kant and Morally Permissable Lies

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.

Should We Go Beyond the Black-White Binary and Include other Races?

America is a diverse nation when examined in terms of cultural and racial elements. Commonly scholars have identified a binary between the white and black populations and this has acted as the main way social scientists have examined race and its effects in our nation. But would it be possible to expand this beyond the black white binary and include Hispanics into this racial examination. With the growing Hispanic population in the united state we might need to examine them as a separate group or at least introduce another binary? I believe that this action is supported by the fact that Hispanics make up about 15 percent of US population while African-Americans make up about 13 percent. These statistics also do not count any amount of illegal immigrants which if counted might increase the Hispanic population to about 20 percent of the country. My main point is that the racism that is directed at the Latino population within our borders is not totally parallel that of black racism and that we might need to expand beyond the simple black-white binary and look at relationships between all races in America.

Hispanics are in many ways a distinctly segregated population than African Americans because the media keeps portraying Hispanics as people who are taking US jobs, are only able to speak Spanish, have increased crime and are destroying our health care and public schools. People are in many ways more afraid of this "unknown" culture because these immigrants seem so unlike "us." But many Americans seem to ignore the fact that the majority of Hispanics are legal citizens and they have values closer to the white American. Many Hispanics are conservative- emphasizing family values, they are also Catholics, and in many cases are more inclined to support the republicans’ economic ideals. The current xenophobes keep telling us that this population will corrupt the spirit of America but maybe they are just helping it transform into a new America? Are immigrants not the basis of this nation? I think that while many view them as a threat and others view them as a crucial piece of America. Which creates a second binary – whether Hispanics are a threat to our way of life or a good addition to this nation?

Personally the race binaries as a whole make too many generalizations and I think we could do better without race as a whole. Are all black people the same? No there is some level of ethnic diversity or a dissimilar immigrant past which affect who they are, not simply the color of their skin. Mexicans and Cubans are not the same; each ethnic group is diverse and in many cases is treated differently even within America. Even Asian Americans should be looked at within their own ethnic groups not as a single entity, because Japanese and Chinese hate one another. Even white people, are they to be viewed as one all inclusive blob? My point is that while we can never stop our people from seeing the physical traits of others, we should try to focus on the diversity of an individual and what that brings to our society based on their abilities and skills.

Why study "the ideal?"

John Rawls. The name sounds familiar. He wrote something about justice, right? Trying to decide which Spindel lecture to attend, I finally settled on “Rawls on Race,” figuring I’d surely leave the conference with a better understanding of this John Rawls guy. Ironically, Rawls’ identity still remains much of a mystery to me, and I learned more about what Rawls didn’t write than what he actually did.

Charles Mills of Northwestern University presents a research paper in which he critiques John Rawls’ “systematic evasion” of racial justice. Apparently if you were to add up all the passages relating to race in over 2000 pages of Rawls’ writing, you might get 5-6 pages. Oh, “Rawls on Race.” How ironic.

Rawls wrote A Theory of Justice in 1971, so Mills finds it bizarre that someone who lived in the U.S. during the Civil Rights Movement could discuss justice without delving into racial injustices. Mills argues that the significance and horror of racial inequality is “beyond the horizon of Rawls’ comprehension,” and attributes this blatant omission of race to Rawls’ “whitewashed” and “Eurocentric” mentality.

Mills questions the soundness of Rawls’ argument for not dealing with race. Rawls claims that he strives to emulate the classical Western philosophers by returning to ideal theory. In Rawls’ ideal society, racism is not an issue. Mills counters that since we live in a non-ideal society plagued by racism, Rawls’ theory is inapplicable to our current state. However, Rawls claims that his principles can be adapted to address racial issues.

“Instead of imagining ourselves behind Rawls’ veil in a timeless original position,” Mills believes we should study non-ideal theory that “starts from the foundational reality not of consent and inclusion but rather domination and exclusion.” Do we need a perfect model of justice to correct or recognize injustice? For Mills, the answer is no, and that trying to create such a model is a waste of energy.

In response, an audience member questions the role of historical evidence within a theoretical framework. Not only does he wonder if the inclusion of such evidence is unnecessary, but if it could potentially weaken the author’s message. If Rawls cites specific incidences of “injustice,” does it require a presupposition that those events are, in fact, unjust?

It appears that the answer Mills wants from Rawls is not the question Rawls tries to answer. Mills looks for ideas on how to both rectify injustices of the past and prevent those of the future. Rawls, on the other hand, only tries to provide a definition of pure, universal justice. Another way to think about this is to consider the difference between a diagnosis and a treatment. Like a diagnostic tool, Rawls’ theory can be applied to determine whether or not something is just. The antidote, Mills’ quest in this case, is solely dependent on the proper diagnosis. While Mills criticizes Rawls for spending so much time composing his theory, I ask, how helpful is an unreliable diagnosis?