No Country for Old Men

Kant says that we should “act in such a way that the free use of your will is in accordance with the freedom of everyone else according to universal law.” We tried to determine if torture was unjust but had trouble figuring if criminals encompassed this “universal law” or due to the fact that they broke the law to begin with the law doesn’t apply. If universal law was present, and the criminal was being tortured for breaking it, then we would not need to worry about having our “will in accordance” with the criminal.

Torture now forces us to question Kant’s “Formal Principle of Morality.” If we treated everyone the way we wanted to be treated then torture would not occur, unless you believe that even if you break the law you would want others to torture you. When applying Mill’s theory, if we were in the bomb situation talked about in class, it would be best to torture the bomber because finding out where the bomb is would guarantee the “least bad for the most people.” Relating this to the Utilitarian Calculus, we can determine that torture is appropriate in this circumstance. Using his view of injustice I would argue that because the bomber is “disappointing expectations that he had cultivated” he is committing an injustice. But do we have the right to torture him? Also included in the Concept of Rights is “depriving someone of their moral rights.” Is torture a deprivation of moral rights? Yes. We have come to philosophical standstill!

Looking at Mill, knowing that torture has a high failure rate, it would be very unfortunate if the bomber gets tortured and still does not reveal the bomb location. This situation would not be the most “good” for the most people. Should we take the chance and hope we get the information through torture to save Rhodes? It’s tedious to determine, but if the bomber has admitted that he knows the bomb location, then he is committing an injustice and does not follow universal law so he shouldn’t be protected by it. On the other side, if he has not admitted to the crime but is assumed that he knows and is tortured with no success then we as the torturers are committing an injustice because it’s not the most “good for the most amount of people.”

Utilitarian Searching

Today in Search, we started Exodus. Through the perils of discussion, someone asked why God was punishing the whole of Egypt if only a few were keeping the Hebrews in slavery. Professor Bakewell asked us if we thought it was better to punish a few for the sake of the whole.

Obviously, my hand was the first one up.

As I rambled out the Categorical Imperative, I knew the rest of my classmates were staring. They tried to argue that in every day circumstances (but not in the Egyptian example) that sacrificing a few is better for the group. More can live. More can prosper.

“An immoral action is not made moral if done for a ‘good’ reason.”

As I was the only Kantian present, Professor Bakewell gave this example: Is it right for a Marine platoon Officer to encourage the weakest link to drop out of the Military? They agreed.

Should a football coach cut the weaker players on the team? More reluctantly, they agreed.

Should a teacher fail part of his class to encourage academic performance? They gave a few muffled agreements.

All the while, I sit in the front row, baffled. If they were true Utilitarians, they would know that the circumstances and consequences of such actions differ so greatly that they should not be used in conjunction to make the same point. As the only one in the class taking philosophy, it was my duty to enlighten them.

The weakest Marine trainee would be acting unjustly by endangering the lives of his platoon and the lives of those for whom he is fighting if he were to make a mistake while the weaker football player would merely, at his worst, cause his team to lose the game or incidentally hurt himself or another player. The teacher is being even more unjust than the Marine-in-training by sabotaging his students. Professors and teachers are supposed to encourage their students to learn. By failing half the class, he is breaking that understood maxim upon which (good) teachers should act.

The leaders of these three groups were all being placed under the assumption that they would be the ones making the unjust decision, which I thought was a great injustice on the class’s behalf. If one looks at the whole of a population, they should look truly at the whole of the population. What has greater consequences: a group of militants and civilians dying or a lost football game?

They were convinced that maybe Utilitarian Calculus might be a little extreme in some circumstances, but they still felt God had done the right thing. I’ll never agree that sacrificing anyone for the betterment of everyone could be right or just.

Kant, Mill, and the Utilitarian Calculus

Earlier this week, we learned about Mill's idea of utilitarianism and the utilitarian calculus. The concept behind the calculus is that the highest good is always that which causes the greatest amount of good (or the least pain) for the greatest amount of people. Superficially, I can agree with this, as I believe that good, moral acts generally make people happy, while bad, immoral ones lead to discontent. However, as usual, it is not quite so cut-and-dry.

There are myriad instances of seemingly good acts that lead to unhappiness. For example, on the always deeply profound MTV show My Super Sweet 16, oftentimes the teen's parents would gift her with a new car. However, if it was not the exact car that she had wanted, she might throw a fit and begin crying, upset at her parents for what would otherwise be seen as a spectacular gift.

To revisit an example I used in a previous post, suppose that there is a car accident that leaves a victim trapped in the car. A bystander wants to help, and extricates the person. However, the victim had suffered an injury, and being moved caused this injury to augment and paralyze him.

Both of these are situations in which the agent of the action fully intended for his action to result in happiness, or at the very least the prevention of unhappiness. However, due to an unforeseen response or circumstance, the action ended in great discontent. I find this to be completely unfair. In adherence with Kant's theory, I believe that consequences should be separated from the intentions that lie behind them. One can never know with certainty what his actions will result in, and so it is unfair to judge him based upon these results.

However, I do still appreciate the basic idea behind the utilitarian calculus. We should try to instill happiness in those we interact with, not to mention avoid causing them pain. Thus, I think it would be better to incorporate both ideas: a good act is an act whose intent is to cause the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. Of course, this is basically impossible to determine without telepathy.

I know I have done the unthinkable here in trying to combine ideas of both Kant and Mill, but what do you guys think about my proposition? What are its major faults? Do you have an idea of your own?

"He's wearing an 'I like to make bombs and put them in Buckman' T-shirt."... The moral dilemma of the day.

There seemed to be a misunderstanding today on the side of the Kantians of the class. Doctor J prompted our discussion basically by asking whether or not the alleged terrorist should be tortured. I think it is important to note that, for Kant, there is only one answer to this question: no. Given the information we know about him at this point, that is truly the only option. And the answer is always no, because torturing someone cannot be willed as a universal law. Some Kantians were looking for some wiggle room, but, looking purely at the basics of Kantian material, there is virtually no wiggle room. Kant would answer no to that question, and that is indubitable.

With that said, the Mills of the world do have both options to weigh and debate. Initially I thought that of course Mill would say yes. The lives of thousands of people, plus the happiness of their families, is of course worth the pain of this one person. And I really think Mill would subscribe to that thought. However, it got a little more complicated when we brought in the information that torture doesn't really work. If that is true, then I personally have no idea what Mill would choose! Still at that point, the options seemed to be to torture or not to torture. However, they soon became to torture, not to torture, or... some alternative to torture meant to have the same intended effects of the torture (that is, that the man would disarm the bomb). At this point, the prompt isn't really a moral dilemma anymore, but, that aside, I think Mill would of course go for the alternative form of torture, which I think we labelled as coercion during today's symposium.

Just trying to sum up what I think about the moral dilemma of the day.

A Conflicted Friend

Just a little something that stood out to me today during our symposium- the idea that torture, could eventually be willed as a universal law. Some of us compared this form of coercion to that of getting a speeding ticket and paying a fine.  I saw my peers perspective  and how they could argue this idea. The idea that it is a specific type of coercion , and you could make an appeal to society on the grounds of a specific argument, was a valid point. However, where I could not agree with them is comparing inhumane treatment to a speeding ticket. With a speeding ticket, you pay a fine. In relation to torture, a person could loose their life. Can we really simplify this so much to compare monetary punishment to a life? Can we allow this comparison , and justify it by saying it is the same idea, just on a different level? Personally, I cant. However, I couldn't argue that our society would agree with my personal beliefs. The reason is because our society implements a reoccurring topic in class, the death penalty. Maybe a society that allows this, could will torture as a universal law. 

On another note, I found myself , as the discussions proceeded, agreeing with aspects of the Kantian theories and the Utilitarian theories. The reason I found this to be interesting is because we noted in class, that the ideas of deontology and utilitarianism are mutually exclusive. Meaning that one could not adopt the practices of both because they contradict each other in practice. Because I found myself doing just that, I wondered, firstly, am I the only one ? Do some of you feel it is impossible to agree wit both Kant and Mill or is it okay to adapt the thinkings of them both to create your own idea of morality and Justice? Also , I wondered, is our own personal justice system a potluck of theories , some which may contradict others? And if so, how do we deal with cases in which theories conflict? 

I am asking several questions with the hopes of clarity from your opinions so please do comment. 

-Voni

Nationalistic Utilitarianism?

The other day in class when the Iraq War and 9/11 became topics of discussion, I started thinking about utilitarianism in our country and in the greater world. How does it work? Can governments follow utilitarian processes of decision-making? What do y'all think Mill would say? Maybe I'm going way off here. Let me know.

Oftentimes it seems like those making policy decisions at least try to be utilitarian. Current political rhetoric suggests that utilitarianism is definitely on the brain of most politicians, even if it is just a means of appealing to a voter base, which means it's on our minds to some degree as well. In terms of domestic policy, there's a debate over which tax policy, which stimulus package or lack of stimulus package will help the greatest number of Americans. We try to weigh the consequences of spending and cutting in light of how many Americans, now and in the future, will benefit or suffer. There may be a bigger issue about how each side defines exactly what an "American" is, but that's another blog post I think. Overall, we're concerned with helping Americans, with supporting the members of our society. The utilitarianism often seems to end at our borders though.

Of course, we talk about foreign aid, war(s), and other forms of international intervention, but the tone of discussion is much different. It's an us and them situation. It seems like we weigh lives and rights differently, as was made clear in the discussion of the Iraq war the other day. The world is clearly much different than it was when Mill wrote, but does that change the way that we should view utilitarianism? It's difficult because we have different sets of laws and different cultural ideas, but global interaction occurs frequently. We work, travel, trade, live, and communicate internationally at much higher rates. Do we also have a responsibility then to consider the international community in the same way that we consider ourselves as Americans when making policy decisions? What are the boundaries of our society and of our utilitarian action?

Mill's Definition of Injustice

When I was looking over my notes to study for the symposium today, I was reading over Mill’s list of what an injustice is and I was questioning exactly what he meant by some of these items. I was wondering how much we actually consider all of these an injustice in everyday life and if a person can really be held responsible for all of these qualifications. Let’s take, for example, number three which says that it is an injustice when someone receives more than they deserve. I think we would all agree that it is an injustice when a person gets paid more money than their career deserves and what they did not work for. The first thing that comes to mind on this topic is Kim Kardashian. Does she deserve to be as rich as she is? A lot of people think that she gets more than she deserves and that is therefore an injustice. What about when someone is born into wealth? They did not earn the money their parents worked hard for and yet they benefit from it and receive some of that wealth without putting in the work. Is that an injustice? Can we hold that against people?

Another injustice I am having trouble agreeing with is number five, which refers to favoritism. I definitely think it is unfair when professors show favoritism and then those students end up with higher grades than the rest of the students; however, I do not think that you can call it an injustice from the other end. If someone favors me and yet and do nothing to warrant that favoritism, then I am not committing an injustice and should not be held responsible. There are people that take advantage of the situation, so they are definitely in the wrong, but I think if it is involuntary then it is not an injustice.

I am probably being too nitpicky on this last one, but I also find issue with number four. This injustice is when someone disappoints expectations that he or she has cultivated. Dr. Johnson explained this as when someone breaks a promise but to me this sounds like it could also apply to when someone has achieved greatness in an area and then they disappoint. That is not an injustice. People do not owe their talent or abilities to anymore. I might be taking this too literally but do you think it could apply to this as well

Are any of these critiques legitimate or am I misunderstanding?

Necessity

Kant's univeral law of justice states that one should "act externally in such a way that the free use of your will is compatible with the freedom of everyone." By acting in such a way our freedom is somewhat resticted, but as rational beings we understand that we must give up some freedoms to receive others and be able to function compatibly with others. Should someone choose not to abide by the universal law and infringe upon the freedom of others, justice authorizes the use of coercion against that person.
Towards the end of class today we talked about the two exceptions that are outside of the claim justice: equity and necessity. Equity deals with moral laws that can not be solved within the judicial system; "right without coercion." Meanwhile necessity deals with situations that are more coercive than law: "coercion without right." The example that we used in class is that justice wouldn't apply should you kill in self-defense because the threat of being murdered would cause the rational person to kill their attacker although murder is a crime punishable by law for the law's punishment wouldn't be as great as the threat of losing your life. I was curious as to what other situations you could apply the exception of necessity to. For example, would justice not apply to someone who resorts to stealing food because he is homeless and can't find a job? Technically, the punishment of going to jail would seem luxurious to him because he would be receiving shelter and food for free; so that wouldn't be a punishment at all compared to dying of starvation and exposure to the elements (a fate that he faced should he not resort to thievery). So is this situation an exception from justice since the situation is more coercive than the law?

Wiggle Room?

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?

Universal Moral Laws

As we discuss further into Kant’s views about justice and moral law, it seems to me a lot more closely related to how our system works today- or at least how it should function- compared to some of the other philosophers we have encountered so far. His perspective allows us to bring into account the realities that we face in our day to day lives. Our laws that are in place seem to follow the concept of the categorical imperative, although there are inevitably some bad laws. At this point we have also made a distinction between justice and moral law which is important in truly understanding justice.

A question did come to mind though as we were discussing the exceptions in which a person cannot be punished, one of which was for those actions done by necessity. I started to consider this idea as a bigger picture- not simply one society but the world in general. In America, we have experienced acts of violence such as the terrorist attacks on 9/11. To my knowledge, these terrorists are often acting out of duty and not by their free will, because they find it necessary to fight for their country’s beliefs and even die for the cause. However, at the same time they are also killing masses of American people- not just any people but innocent civilians- for the sake of their “duty.” I may be way off base here, but I wonder if this instance can still apply to what we now understand to be morally right under the moral law. Can we say that these people are not culpable for the act they have committed simply because there is not free will being exercised? This also makes me wonder if what we are applying these views about justice and morality only apply to our society or from a global standpoint. If we consider humanity as a whole, I think it is still important to be able to coexist as people of the same human race in which we are not infringing on another’s right to free will. This peaceful coexistence should apply even if we have completely different views or cultural standards by respecting each other’s rights to these views. I know we are considering our society, but I cannot help but think that some of these same ideas about morality should apply to everyone as a true universal law.

I Kant Stop Thinking About It

I had second thoughts about the title, but who am I kidding, Kant jokes never get old.

In class today, we talked about Equity and Necessity, the two exceptions Kant lists when using his rules to determine what is just/unjust. Focusing on the latter, it was determined that if one uses free will to negotiate their actions, they are subject to the "willing the maxim of your actions as a universal law" concept. However, if the agent has no way to control what is happening to them, they can plead "necessity" as the cause of their action, and are therefore voided of punishment.

Meanwhile, in Search, we have been reading the Bible, and I was pondering the application of Kant's theory to an extremely faithful person. So....

Let's say I am a practicing Jew. And I miss Dr. J's class because my religion requires me to attend services on High Holy Days. In my mind, it was necessary to miss class. Although I know that not all of the world's people comply with Jewish mandates, I can will the maxim of my actions as a universal law among all practicing Jews. By using the group of people that I share a faith with, instead of all people in the world, am I still a rational agent? Does philosophy completely disregard religion? Or is it a separate religion, based entirely on a faith in rationality?

is lying always wrong?

In class we discussed how according to Kant lying is always wrong regardless of whether or not we are doing it for a good reason. Lying to protect someone is still wrong because we could not wish the maxim "it is ok to lie when necessary" as a universal law. This seems reasonable and rational, even if given the choice we might still have a hard time telling the truth if we knew it might cause harm. We can understand the danger in allowing people to lie whenever they felt it "necessary" because we can imagine the chaos and distrust that would follow. No rational being would wish this.

Kant also describes the only absolute good as being the good will. The good will is acting for the sake of duty alone. He says that the will of an act is not inseparable from its consequences and therefore an act of good intention is still good regardless of whether or not the outcome is good.

Keeping this in mind, I would like to return to the idea of the act of lying to protect someone as being wrong. It seems to me that when someone lies to help another, they are acting with good intentions. Therefore it seems that their will is good. They feel they have a duty to protect whoever they are lying for and they act based on this duty. If their will is good and they are acting based on duty, why is their action wrong? I think Kant would say it is because their duty is not to the person they are lying for but to the moral law and therefore they cannot lie even if it is for a seemingly good cause. I understand this but I am not sure I agree with it. I think that maybe this situation could fall under a different maxim "it is ok to lie if the will behind the lie is good". Does this maxim have the same faults as the other? Would it cause the same problems or could it rationally be wished as a universal law? I’m not sure but I am also not sure that telling the truth with the knowledge that it can cause harm is really better than lying with the intention to do good.

Nonsensical Laws and Justice

In class, we discussed the idea that no matter the circumstance, breaking the law is considered commiting an act of injustice. I believe that it is essential to provide rules as a baseline in order to establish peace and regulation, because good will, in itself, has multiple motives from different people. Mill states, “Mankind are always predisposed to believe that any subjective feeling not otherwise accounted for, is a revelation of some objective reality.” Everyone has their own set of morals; therefore, rules are essential in order to prevent the destruction of mankind and overall disorder of society. However, I believe that we have social acceptances that permit the bending of the law based on the unspoken and unwritten moral laws. This turns the black and white and right versus wrong to have medians. For instance, if you look in the bible, it states “thou shalt not kill.” I found it an interesting fact in Life class that upon the founding Israel, refuge cities were set up to allow “accepted injustices” to leave peacefully without confrontation from the law. For example, if you accidentally dropped a brick off your house and killed your neighbor, you have the ability to move to escape the law and take refuge to another city. Kant states, “Necessity has no law.” If necessity has no laws, then how do you draw determine what was necessary and what was not necessary? Could this show that laws are objective among a group of people and that it is the form of punishment that unspoken rules of morality are applied?

Laws are only as good as their ability to enforce what they dictate. Therefore, why make nonsensical laws that are incapable of regulation. Laws in themselves are formal announcements to what society acclaims to be just. Even though laws change countlessly between countries, nations, and time, the main purpose remains the same: to maintain order. In a sense, laws that cannot be enforced are created to provide a moral baseline. However, if there is a clear distinction between the two, how do you determine whose moral principle is correct? Relating to the categorical imperative, how do you create a universal law while maintaining necessity principles? All of the principles philosophers make about what makes a just society all seem like they have examples that can support their claim. The problem that I run across learning about all these different theories is application: how do you create laws and establish them as just and equal within a society?

Exceptions to the Concepts of Justice

In today's class we discussed Kant's own exceptions to his concepts of justice. For most of the philosophers we've discussed, we, as a class, deemed there were exceptions to their theories or ideals; but, for the first time, a philosopher himself has mapped out the exceptions. Kant outlines his three concepts of justice, which state that justice applies to external and practical relationships solely between people's wills and that justice does not take into account the content of the will, but instead only the form. Following these concepts are the exceptions of equity and necessity. In simple terms we defined equity as right without coercion and necessity as coercion without right.

The best way to describe equity is the use of Professor J.'s cupcake example. A contract was agreed upon and signed by both parties stating that the two people would both make and sale cupcakes, and then split the earnings. One person made 2,000 cupcakes while the other made only 12, but despite the drastic difference in contribution, they still split the earnings evenly. The contract is upheld, so what took place was not unjust; however, it could be deemed unfair, which is a matter that really does not hold up in accordance to the law.

On the other hand, is the exception of necessity. The exception pertains to scenarios in which Kant says, "necessity has no law." The best way to describe this concept is also with an example discussed in class. If a person is faced with the dilemma of being killed or killing the attempted murderer, any consequence that person may face as a result of killing the person that threatened his life cannot be worse or more severe than what the person has already been faced with.

The latter exception really caught my attention. If this exception to the law applied to our laws today, many people that are imprisoned or have been imprisoned in the past may have faced completely different consequences. Think about it. Many people steal or commit other crimes, because they perceive that there is no other way to have their needs met. For example, if there is a family that has no income, no food, but children that need to be fed, the act of stealing a meal is not worse than seeing a child die of hunger or malnutrition. At that time, the law is of no consideration. From all of our discussions, no one would will a maxim that says stealing is permissible, but at the same time we can say that with this exception the results of getting caught stealing or not stealing at all render consequences that are both bad. In class it was said that laws are infringements on our rights and freedom in general, so if a person decides to ignore these laws out of necessity for their livelihood or well-being, what happens? In our society they would still be punished, but what do you think would happen if this exception applied to our laws? Would necessities become interchanged with wants and desires, or would necessities themselves be met for everyone initially, so that there would not be a need for the exception at all?

The Moral Grey Area: Does it Exist?

"Concepts without intuitions are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind." -Kant

Dr. J quoted this in class in an attempt to better explain how to understand Kant's philosophies. The way American's interpret justice caused some confusion and opposition to The Categorical Imperative in class on Wednesday due to how stringent it seems to be: 1) Act in a way that one can will his or her maxim as a universal law, 2) Act in such a way towards humanity only as an end in itself and 3) act in accordance with the maxims giving universal laws for a possible kingdom of ends. Unsurprisingly, the first aspect to the categorical imperative was most contested in the class. Typically morality and ethics is seen in a sort of grey area; meaning there is much interpretation to be done whether one ought to do something or not. However as we learned, ought caries with it universality. It is impossible to both believe morality is specific to a situation (the person in question's background, the other people's actions involved, etc.) and to also have a universality.

The key to understanding Kant is where interpretation comes into play, and this is exactly where American’s legal system is very in line with Kantian ethics. America’s justice system is comprised mostly of a set of laws, which one is obligated to follow if he or she chooses to live in America. There is no interpretation of these laws: one either follows them by not stealing, murdering and the like or they do not follow them by committing these society-harming acts. There is no grey area here: it is black and white. The consequences are only involved when it comes to interpreting to what extend someone broke the law. The application of moral laws requires judgment, but the attempt is to be as close to the universal moral laws as possible.

The question(s) that arise personally for me are why we seem to have the societal norms of looking to morality as a grey area. We’ve stated multiple times the reason ethical dilemmas arise is because one must choose what he views to be the lesser of two evils. Does portraying ethics in a way that makes it seem relative to the situation make people feel more comfortable than if they were to think they were doing wrong? If someone has an ingrained sense of universal laws—which seems likely if he wants society to all be subject to these rules—then perhaps the interpretation is needed for mental well being.

Kant - really universal?

This week, I would like to share some thoughts about the theory of my countryman Immanuel Kant, which I had in the past and which still keep me busy.

As you all know, we discussed the different formulations of the Categorical Imperative in the last class as well as in today‘s class. My thoughts mainly deal with which is probably the most famous formulation, namely: „Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.“ The very base of this approach is that Kant wanted to create a moral law or rather a method to check if a way of acting is considered to be moral or not. Kant‘s claim was, to shape this law in a way, so that it applies to all human beings. Having this in mind, we can understand, we he founds his theories on Reason and not on Happiness, like e.g. Aristotle did. In Kant‘s view, happiness has thousands of faces and therefore can‘t be the measurement for a moral law, but Reason is the same in every human being.

This exactly is the point, I want to talk about: Is Reason really the exact same reason in every human being? Of course, we have to distinguish between Reason and intelligence, but is Reason not also very close connected to the social surrounding and the culture area, where a person grew up? Surely, we would all agree that people coming from the same culture have at least very basic beliefs in common, but what if we compare an indigene and a so called „civilized“ man?

Moral thinking, virtues and therefore also the measurements, how to evaluate them, can definitely change. This can also be seen, if we compare moral beliefs of ancient peoples with contemporary ones.

Although I really believe that the argument mentioned above is true, we cannot deny the fact that no matter at which culture or kind of civilization we look, basic moral principles can be found in each one of them. We would have a hard time to find any kind of society in which it is morally accepted to kill other people. Maybe there was such a society in human history, but we definitely see that this is not a good way to survive.

Personally, I would really myself consider to be a follower of Kant‘s Philosophy, but that does not mean that I cannot criticize his theories. All in all, I think that his approach is one of the best ways in order to create a just and well-working society (also in aspects of the good life, even this was not his main goal), but only within one culture area.

What do you think about this criticism?

A Good Willed Selfless Act ?

   In class we ventured into Kant. In the course of this discussion we came across the idea of “The Good Will” .This is, doing an action that you would consider good, even if the consequences of said action is not a positive one. In class we gave the example of hiding someone in your home, who is running from an axe murderer. When the murderer comes to your door asking for the person, you send him in a random direction, however unbeknownst to you, the person has left out the back door in that very direction. This may end badly, however your intent was purely good. 

   I ask, where was this definition when we repeatedly debated  in class, whether there was a such thing as a selfless act? In my opinion it would have made the separation of the act itself and the consequences of the act an easier process. I also believe it would have created a more explicit criteria for what we consider a selfless act to be. Often times in class we argued that many people participate in philanthropy knowing the societal rewards they could have received. Due to this knowledge some of us argued this disqualified the act as selfless. However, had we been able to separate the intent from the consequences, I am convinced, certain peoples arguments would have changed. 

   It is impossible to predict the consequences of an action. While some are more probable than others, and based off experience we can assume the consequences of such actions,  but they are not guaranteed. It is not a guarantee that someone will say,“bless you” each time you sneeze. Just as so, it is not guaranteed that someone will admire a charitable donation and say thank you. This, however does not take away the intent behind your charitable donation. You had no way of guaranteeing the reward of a thank you. 

   No, I am not arguing that each time someone does an act that appears to be selfless, that they have a good intent.  I am simply saying that if we, like in the idea of good will, separate a good intention, from whatever consequence, would it not be easier to define an act as selfless? 

   Or am I completely wrong to even apply the idea of “The Good Will” to the idea of a selfless act? Or Does a selfless act employ the use of a good will, thus causing the two to be permanently intertwined? I need your opinions peers. 

-Voni

Dissatisfaction and Irrationality in Kant's Ideal Society

As we have discussed in class and on the blog, there is an essential division between how we conceive of justice in the abstract and how it can be implemented in a particular society. This does necessarily say anything about the feasibility or indeed advisability of adopting one philosopher or another’s system of justice, though in the real world, it is often a distorted and amalgamated semblance of the original ideals that results. This is due to the natural conflict between reason and emotion that continually occurs in each person, and the irrational decisions made with more emotion than logic often qualify as or produce injustices. Plato proposes that the three parts of one’s mind should be maintained in balance but does not specify how to adjust these individual parameters. Aristotle posited that justice is good, injustice bad and that virtues lie between two extremes, all of which are intuitive and generally acceptable principles, but again, he failed to lay out a concrete method of constructing a society where these principles can be implemented robustly.

Kant once again proposed a set of rules by which people can behave justly, but leaves open the question of dealing with the essentially irrational nature that all people demonstrate some of the time. His points are both more ethereal and more practical than Plato’s or Aristotle’s, though, and they seem to encapsulate many of the characteristics shared by the two earlier philosophers. In his specification that there are multiple types of decisions, ones that can be made with no experience and ones that require experience, he admits that the world is not deterministic, and in doing so allows the need for a system to correct injustices created by people acting in unpredictable and unjust ways. Yet he does not provide such a system, at least explicitly. Why is this the case? Is such a system, i.e, one that forces everyone to act with strictly good will all of the time, actually possible to create, or does Kant’s belief that justice and coercion are intimately connected render unlikely the creation of a system that would not engender just as much ill will toward the system itself as the good will it was designed to create between members of the society?

The Unconditional Good

According to Kant, the only wholly unconditional good is good will. The intent to do good can never be bad. Of course, actions committed with good intent do not always end well. However, Kant resolves this by declaring that we must differentiate between intent and result; after all, one can never know with surety what the end result of his actions will be. I find this to be a very fair idea, as those who attempt to do good, only to have some outside force cause their plan to backfire, do not deserve to be blamed for such unforeseen circumstances. For instance, there have been situations in which a person extricates an injured person from a wrecked car, merely trying to help, but being moved causes paralysis in the victim. The bystander had no way of knowing that that would happen, and would surely have not wished it. In Kant's view, although the person's actions did result in further damage, he is not at fault, and his initial good will remains good.

Kant also says that the best form of the unconditional good is that which is done "for the sake of duty alone." This is to say that good will expressed when it is not beneficial, or perhaps is even disadvantageous, to the agent is the highest good. So, using the same example, the act of helping an injured person from a wreck would become greater if the bystander had to go into a burning car (endangering himself) in order to extricate the victim.

While this certainly does sound more impressive, I'm not convinced that this act should be considered any more good than the first instance. During a previous class discussion, we seemed to have come to the conclusion that committing a good act that would provide one with a reward did not make the act itself any less good. Why, then, should committing a good act that has an accompanying penalty make the act any more good? For someone like Kant, with a concept as black and white as the moral imperative, this seems like a very circumstantial judgment to make. Also, to touch on another previous discussion, this idea does not mesh well with the concept that there is no selfless act; no matter how disadvantageous an act may seem, there is still a hidden benefit to the agent. With this in mind, how could anyone be ranked as committing this highest unconditional good?

While I do agree with Kant in that intent and result should be discrete, I don't think that acting "for the sake of duty alone" is superior to any other good act. How do you guys feel about this?

Sacrifice

As we discussed who would be a better juror in this week’s symposium, I couldn’t help but think repeatedly about the “good of the whole.” We discussed if rectification or rehabilitation was more important, which inevitably lead to the argument that without rehabilitation, the problem can be reoccurring. We are not fixing anything if we simply rectify the situation.

I tried to argue (without success) that rehabilitation would, in the long run, be a type of rectification by fixing the base issue. I did not account for the one who suffered the injustice (as Dr. J quickly pointed out). How do we return the man’s 20 dollars to him?

I wanted to say (as Plato, of course) that the man who lost 20 dollars could find indirect justice through accepting that balance would be found again in his society, that no one else would suffer as he has, that his sacrifice would support the community, and he should be contempt with that.

Some would say he is settling; others would say that I’m reaching too far into Utilitarianism. I say sacrifice is important when discussing justice: why haven’t we done it yet?

Kant says “I am not expected, much less required, to restrict my freedom to these conditions for the sake of obligation itself.” He says we needn’t give up things because we feel we must. Regardless, I think we’ve agreed in class that logic and reason should rule all decisions. If one is going to sacrifice, the sacrifice will be done not for obligation, but because logic warrants that decision.

No one should ever need to sacrifice. If one is sacrificing, it means that another is either suffering injustice or causing injustice. Nevertheless, when a case arises when a neighbor needs a sacrifice, one should sacrifice willingly. It shows compassion and a following of the Golden Rule.

Wouldn’t you want someone to sacrifice for you?

In today’s class, we touched on Kant’s overall philosophy, and some of the thoughts that he had in his Critiques. One of the points brought up was glossed over- Kant’s direction to “Act only in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your person or another, always as an end in itself and never as merely a mean.” Although seemingly merely a re-wording of the age old adage of the Golden Rule, I find the way Kant words this point both confusing and impossible to follow.

To treat another human as an end and not a means implies that humans have intrinsic value, versus instrumental value, which would be given to humans being used. Yet I find humans as inherently instrumental tools for each other, with no intrinsic value. Man is a pack animal, and although we have evolved incredibly complex and intricate societies, we are still no more than that. We rely on each other, and through our interactions, we have developed a sense of right and wrong that are both genetically and socially engrained. Man on his own is neither good nor bad, but a part of a cycle of life. In order to find intrinsic value in humanity, or other humans, one must be able to find such value within the individual. And as the individual can not exist outside of the confines of society (whether one chooses to stay there or not is individual choice, but we are all born with at least one other person), we can only see individuals within his or her given context.

This context stretches beyond the bonds of public life, and is present in even the most personal corners of our lives, like when a child clings to its mother for survival, a man loves his wife because she evokes the emotion called love, or friends enjoy each others company. Although we attach a higher level of meaning to the relationships we form, they are at their most basic as instrumental as a company developing sweat shops in third world countries and governments exploit the fears of civilians. It is only by attaching emotions to them that we see people as valuable, and seek to treat people like they have intrinsic value. Even kindness for kindness sake is only an extension of instrumental use for the purpose of emotional satisfaction. All judgments of a man’s value are wiped away when she or he is taken out of her or his surroundings. Even the value we put on ourselves is indicative of how successful we are at survival and fulfillment. Man has no more intrinsic value than any other advanced collection of atoms. We are literally dust in the wind.

Rehabilitation as a Fundamental Element of a Justice System

It has been important for me, in our discussion, to remind myself that there is a definite difference between the theories or ideal societies we are discussing and what aspects of those are applicable in reality. I may be bordering on idealism in this post, but I think it could be really impactful to try out this idea.

During our symposia, the question of retribution versus rehabilitation in terms of rectificatory justice was discussed a lot. Which really is more valuable in amending an injustice? Well, I think it depends on the type of injustice done. More specifically, I think it depends on whether or not the victim of the injustice (the person in the deficiency zone of the scale) has had something taken away that can actually be returned. In our discussion, we headed in this direction a bit, but I think it is important to consider rehabilitation for the victim as a factor for restoring justice. Our justice system surrounds addressing the facillitator of the injustice. This is done through punishments like jail or fines, and certainly should be done, and sometimes is, though I think not directly through our justice system, through rehabilitation like group or individual therapy. Punishment is a good preventative measure, and can be effective with the people who actually go through it, but the facillitator of the injustice would gain more from his experience of whatever punishment through rehabilitation. Understanding what made an action wrong would certainly prevent the person from committing that wrong and maybe even similar wrongs again (unless the person were a psychopath, obviously). But, for many crimes, if we only address that side of the issue, justice cannot have really been restored. Even if I've only had a sweater stolen from me, then returned, maybe I am disconcerted about that. I, as the victim, should have the chance to address my feelings regarding the crime done against me. This is admittedly over the top, but at least restoration of justice would be greater. Not perfect, but greater. But what about for a victim of rape? There is a lot of physical and emotional damage done to a rape victim, certainly enough to make therapy a reasonable option, but many rape victims are afraid or ashamed to go to therapy. If therapy or rehabilitation were already a part of the justice system, for both the facillitator and victim of an injustice, then each side of the justice equation could be addressed. As I said before, the necessity of rehabilitation does depend on the injustice done, but we cannot run our justice system like that. We would probably have to implement it all or nothing. If we could make it conditional, it would probably be implemented in specifically violent crimes before any others. It would obviously take a lot of planning and effort, but I think it could make a difference in the efficacy of our justice system.

Rehabilitation of Criminals

I found our last symposium very interesting because it brought up a very controversial topic of conversation: how criminals should be dealt with once convicted. I have always been in support of rehabilitation because I do not see the point of criminals sitting in jail for an extended period of time and then being released. Around 70% of males released from prison will be arrested again and 50% will be convicted again within three years of being released(http://www.jstor.org/pss/30036962). Obviously, the prison system is not effective because many convicts continue the same behavior once they are free again. I agree the retribution is important because victims are victims. The perpetrator did something to them that they did not deserve, so something needs to happen so that justice is restored for them. However, this is a hard thing to accomplish sometimes. If someone has money stolen, it should be returned to him or her. It is a lot more difficult when dealing with things like damaged items that cannot be replaced or when people are assaulted and raped. You cannot undo something like that. That is why I think that retribution does not always work. Many crimes cannot be fixed that way. Not all victims feel that things are even again when someone spends time in jail. The prisoners’ freedom is taken away, but for some people, jail is a part of life for them, and they do not learn anything from it.

That is why rehabilitation needs to be an important aspect of criminal treatment. If we want people to enter the real world and not commit crimes again, something needs to change. If we know why people committed crimes, it is much easier to figure out what kind of help they need. It will not always work, but it is worth trying. The money spent implementing a system like this would be expensive but it would save money in the long run because there will not be as many people in prison, which is very costly.

I think that Plato and Aristotle would agree that both methods would be affective. Obviously Aristotle would support the retribution aspect to restore justice, but I think he would see value in rehabilitation as well. For people to maintain justice in society, they need to understand how to be virtuous. Being virtuous means finding the Golden Mean. Plato would agree with rehabilitation as well because criminals do not always have balanced souls; one part is overruling the others. A society is made up of the individuals, so for a society to be harmonious, the people need to be in balance. He thinks that once a soul is harmonious, the person will be able to play his or her role in society and therefore the society will be just. I think that he would also agree with the retribution part because the rulers are meant to restore justice and make sure people stay in line. A way they could go about doing this is through retribution.

Do you think that our society would be a better place if we implemented both of these tactics? Do you think that Aristotle and Plato would agree that both methods would be the most effective together?

Categorical Imperative

Kant's explanation of the categorical imperative raises interesting questions of morality, rationale, and universality. I am usually extremely reluctant to take seriously any argument that requires "universality," given the immeasurable differences in human experience around the world. Even arguing that there exists a universal understanding of what is "rationale" seems risky given my Foucault-influenced mind, which focuses on the socialization of the mind itself and questions any notion of "naturalness" and thus "universality."

Even with my reluctance, Kant mostly succeeds in convincing me of the first aspect of the categorical imperative, which is that one should always act in such a way that s/he can will the maxim of her/his actions as universal law. The individual would (in theory) be rational and thus be comfortable expecting every other rational individual to act in the same way. This principle is not situational but universal, always applying to every situation. My immediate reaction to this idea was hesitancy, thinking of every possible objection to this supposed truth. For example, I thought about murder. When Bin Laden was killed, the majority of Americans rejoiced, high fiving friends and celebrating as if we had just beat a rival football team in an important game. The general opinion of the moment seemed to be that, "Yes, of course we are happy. He deserved to be killed." The subsequent underlying maxim of this celebratory vibe seemed to then be, "If someone kills, especially in large number, s/he deserves to be killed also." Am I comfortable with this being a universal truth with no exceptions, ever? Are you?

Using the concept of "universality" forces us to answer questions we are usually either uncomfortable answering or that we try to provide vague, non-concrete solutions for. The black and whiteness of calling something "universal" forces us (according to Kant) to concede that yes, even lying to protect your own life in the Witness Protection Program is immoral. Calling something that seems "right" to us is inherently uncomfortable because the categorical imperative allows for no gray area, and we love gray areas.