In reading many of the class's blog posts from today, I noticed a particularly common theme: we are all pretty interested in the Kant's exceptions to the universal rules of justice. One reason why I think equity and necessity are such interesting concepts is that admitting that some decisions must be up to the "courts of conscience" seems like such a loophole in Kant's otherwise firm stance on universal, formal maxims. The categorical imperative, specifically its first aspect, requires us to define strict maxims in order to define morality. If lying is wrong, then lying is wrong no matter the circumstance. If murder is wrong, then it does not matter if it is in self-defense; it is (by nature of a rational person's maxim) wrong regardless of circumstance.
However, the equity and necessity conditions in Kant's argument do seem to permit some wiggle room in morality. Am I understanding him wrong? Perhaps he is not actually suggesting wiggle room in morality, but rather in justice. It is not moral to lie or to kill in any scenario, but is it just to lie or kill in self-defense or to prevent some greater evil? Does anyone want to clarify the line between morality and justice in regards to equity and necessity?
Kant does say that if something is wrong (killing, lying, etc,) it is always wrong. When Kant discusses equity and necessity, actions, such as a person taking advantage of the terms of an agreement and not doing his share and a person killing someone to save his own life, are still bad. What Kant says is that although these actions are wrong, there is no way to effectively punish the perpetrators in these situations. The actions are morally wrong, but there is no way to bring about justice.
ReplyDeleteKant does not suggest that there is wiggle room in morality but instead implies that there is wiggle room in the cirumstances in which justice can be brought about.
I agree with Rochelle almost completely. Kant doesn't think that circumstances can ever change whether or not something is right or wrong. We briefly discussed in class moral dilemmas with reference to the right of necessity. We defined a moral dilemma as choosing between two wrongs. Necessity never makes killing someone else right. But I also think, contrarily to both Leanne and Rochelle, that our justice system does not leave much, if any, wiggle room with murders done in self-defense. That is still murder, and it does not send a good message to allow someone to be free who took another human being's life. It makes it more okay for other people to do it. It makes it a more accessible action. But I think that the court systems to have an understanding in those situations that it would be a moral dilemma, which is why the consequences are significantly less.
ReplyDeleteAubrey
I have a problem with Kant’s assertion that what is wrong is always wrong, Although I can appreciate that certain actions can always be classified as wrong, I don’t think that labeling things wrong or right based on Universal maxims brings any weight to the judgment. That is to say, if something is wrong, but circumstantially it is an appropriate action, i.e. lying to someone for their own benefit, then there is no need to state that lying is still wrong, because it has no effect. If wrong and right are purely theoretical concepts, then they are providing no basis for action in the real world. I find no need to justify every action as right or wrong based on the idea that it could or should be applied to all humans, seeing as it isn’t.
ReplyDeleteIsn't that just an argument for moral relativism? Right and wrong don't actually exist thus every thing we do is right in that we decide whether or not we ought to do it in that particular scenario? If everyone believed this it would have catastrophic results in society, literally everything could and would be done not necessarily with regards to other people. Using Kant's categorical imperative, willing one's action to be a universal maintains a status quo allows people to rely on not living in a world similar to the state of nature.
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you see the need -if not need, simply humans' tendency to do so- to categorize something as 'right' or 'wrong'?
yes, It's an argument for moral relativism.
ReplyDeleteAny of these arguments can be taken to extremes and bastardized, however. If you follows pure moral relativism, it is very easy to end up in conflict with yourself. I feel as though in cases of justice, it is necessary to have a fundamental law that one always follows to a point. The idea that "the strictest justice is the greatest injustice" is not able to corrected through legislation. Simply stating that the ideas of "right" and "wrong" are meaningless simply because they are theoretical concepts is a huge cop out. Many things are theoretical concepts that we apply to every day things. Just as Kant states, there is no such thing as an actual triangle, yet we still classify things as such. It does not lose its meaning simply because it is not ACTUALLY a triangle because it is impossible to create a triangle. In many ways, this is similar to Plato's Theory of Forms worded in a more succinct way. The categorical imperative is a means by which individuals may act morally without acting hypocritically. Moral relativism, as with utilitarianism, leaves far too much room for interpretation, whereas Kantian Ethics leaves very little room for wiggle by providing specific and finite exceptions. I think that many in the class do not like the categorical imperative because of confirmation bias, i.e. they feel as though certain things should be done so they are trying to find a morality in which it is acceptable to do so. Kant is saying that certain actions are immoral. This could simply be my own confirmation bias, but I do not remember him saying that all actions should be moral.
ReplyDelete