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.
Terrorists are usually raised to have radical views; therefore, their moral code is extremely different than the average U.S. citizen. I think this is a wonderful example of why we cannot have laws based on morality. The terrorists may have had "good will" according to their own moral standards; however, they also had free will. They did what they believed to be "right," and I do not think that it is possible to say that they did not have the ability to go against their actions. People will always continue to act on their beliefs, and I do not think that it is possible to set up a moral law. A universal law needs to be established so that humans do not contribute to their own extinction.
ReplyDeleteI think one thing to remember here would be that Kant also demands that every individual be treated as an end in him or herself and not as a means. When the terrorists attacked on 9/11, they used thousands of people as a means of conveying their message. In fact, had they killed only themselves out of whatever they believed to be their duty, I think the same would apply. I'm guessing at the logic behind their actions, but I assume that when individuals like those think of duty, they do not think of duty in the Kantian sense. The Categorical Imperative demands that each person be able to will his or her actions as a maxim and that each person treat himself and every other person as ends and not as means. The terrorists meet neither requirement.
ReplyDeleteThe central issue that comes to mind when considering indoctrination or brainwashing of the sort often blamed for terrorists’ actions is whether what they believe are their own freely made decisions are in fact an exercise of free will. Even if they believe it is absolutely essential to take some action, apart from the case of necessity discussed below, every action they take is strictly an application of their will. From a strict interpretation of Kant’s principle that one should “act only so that the maxim of your actions can be willed as a universal law,” we decided in class that it is never right to kill anyone, since willing death in any specific circumstance is too close to willing death at one’s convenience, which is neither fair nor good. When a terrorist decides to kill a person on the basis of religion, he is applying a rule synonymous with “killing another is just under certain circumstances;” this is exactly what we have affirmed can never be just. Furthermore, Kant states that only in cases of “necessity” and “equity” can any action fall beyond the reach of the forgoing formulation of justice. For a situation to fall under equity, the issue in question – whether to kill another – would need to claim something one might reasonably believe is due to one and yet is not specified for or against in any piece of evidence admissible in a court. Clearly, even if the perpetrator produced a document giving justification for the death of the victim, as the victim never agreed to such a document by legally signing it or by accepting it from societal convention, the document would have no legal force. The issue meets the criteria of not being subject to legal documents and may therefore be seen as one of equity. However, although the terrorist could then claim that there is some unwritten or implied reason for killing the victim and that this meets some equitable criteria, it is not acceptable to will the death of another by the “universal law” argument above. It is self-evident that killing another on religious grounds cannot be a case of necessity, for the natural punishment that would be received by the murderer were the killing to not happen – some sort of future corruption of society or personal punishment in an afterlife – is far more indefinite than an immediate threat of bodily harm. While immediate physical danger is indisputably real, undoubtedly harmful and will affect any person similarly, the religious principles that threaten spiritual punishment are intrinsically non-universal and debatable. Therefore these beliefs can never constitute the same powerful justification for intrinsically unjust actions as the threat of immediate physical harm that permits killing in self-defense. Accordingly, terrorists’ actions in killing people of different faiths – or even of the same faith – can never be dismissed as a case that falls beyond the rule of law and consequences based on the perpetrator’s responsibility for his actions.
ReplyDelete