|
|
|
|
Kant's world is a world of absolutes. It is a world where logic, ration, and reason are supreme. Everything done by rational beings must be done by reason. In order to be purely rational one must operate outside the empirical world where acts are influenced by intentions, desires, motives, and consequences. You must be totally removed from the empirical world. There is no sometimes right or wrong or any gray area in Kant's metaphysical system of morals. There are right acts and wrong acts and nothing in between. Even in right acts there is a right way and wrong way to fulfill the duty of an imperative. A right act the right way is a categorical imperative. Not only a right act but totally pure. When anything is done with an intent or consequences in mind it is hypothetical. In order to be categorical the act would have to be done for itself by itself for the sheer sake of duty to a principle that meets universal imperatives. The act could not be done because of any empirical intention, desire, or consequence but solely and simply because in the metaphysical world it is right by reason. I agree with Kant’s logic that rational beings should use reason to discern what is right from wrong. If we were not to do this we’d be just like beast and it wouldn’t make for much of a discussion. Kant says this is true not only of men but all rational beings. He doesn’t say though that all beings even all men are rational beings. Then what becomes of beings especially men who are not rational? Do they become exempt from these, duties, imperatives and maxims? I would hope not. Providing that all men are rational beings though I would agree with Kant that we should use reason to discern these things. I only partially agree with Kant's theory that it is the act itself that is always either right or wrong. I'm willing to agree with him in that there are some acts that are always right and there are some that are always wrong. I can only agree with that though on judging the acts themselves, not the morality of the person, which would surely upset Kant greatly, when the act is done without intent in regard to the consequences. Acts are not ends in themselves but a means to an end. If you were to focus on the imperative that we are all ends not means and should be treated as such why are we judging the means which have no value instead of the rational beings who are ends that do? The means and ends operate in n the same manner of Augustine's philosophy where desire for the temporal was bad unless it led to things eternal. I consider acts the means to an end. The acts are tools and in themselves and individual act may be either right or wrong all the time but it is the total of the ends that are achieved that should be weighed. It is the end that is achieved through use of our actions that decides if our conduct was just. How we use them, our intent, and the consequences is what determines if they were right or wrong. Take for example lying being bad. We'll say that it is bad all the time no matter what the reason. Is it possible to ever lie and it still be okay? In Kant's system it never would be because it doesn't take into account consequences or intent. This would be okay except that it is based on individual acts instead of the totality of all the acts that go into a larger one. I’ll use an example that was on the news just this week. A woman jogger had taken a personal safety class and was instructed to say or do whatever you need to do to get enough time to get away from your attacker. The attacker was trying to rape her and she screamed, "I have AIDS!!". The woman confessed to the authorities that she did not but that it made the attacker pause giving her enough time to get away. Had she not done this not only is it likely he would have raped her but she may have also been killed. Now was it right for this woman to tell this lie? Was the lie still wrong? I'd say yes it was still wrong to lie. The lie though was not the only thing that happened here. The lie was not the end that was to be achieved. Something bigger here happened which would require you to step out of the metaphysical world and back into the empirical to see. The end that was achieved was directly a person. Not only did she save herself but prevented someone else from acting unjustly. Something Kant doesn't even really try to touch is what is done to reconcile or bring back to order the events of the situation if the woman does what Kant says is just. He also fails to adequately address what happens when there are conflicting sets of categorical imperatives. In Kant's system this woman has not only a duty not to lie and preserve the truth but also to preserve her own life. He's given both of these as a must without so much as an inkling of how to fulfill it. At least in other systems of ethics even if the act is wrong they've at least provided for a way to atone it or for the higher imperative or maxim to be met. That addresses just the act itself. It is very hard to separate these two because one leads right to the other and back again so that it almost becomes circular but let's examine intentions, motives, desires, and consequence. Not only does Kant say there are acts that are right or wrong but even the ones that are right acts must be judged categorically without any regard to consequence or intent. First why do people seek to be just or to live right in the first place? Is it just so they could know that they did this. Kant would say yes. Providing we're rational beings he'd have us believe we do this for no other reason than our duty to reason. I will not say that this never happens. I’m quite sure that it does all the time. In comparison to what really happens the majority of the time for the majority of people though sometimes that reason is lacking in explanation. People seek to live justly largely because it has an affect on them , those that are around them, and those that will come after them. The laws that we each have in our own domains aren't made and kept just because they are good and spring from reason and a good will. Laws are made to shape, modify, change, or control some type of behavior the lawmaker wishes to see society operate in the confines of. The laws are made in essence in an attempt to control consequences. I agree with Kant in that our maxims should be universal. It seems very right and fair that for a maxim to be valid it would have to be universal being applied even to ourselves. If we couldn’t apply it to ourselves we couldn’t make it a law. Our laws are not universal even in their own domain. Take for example it being against the law to speed. People speed all the time and all do not receive the same reward. Some receive nothing for this transgression of the law at all. Without the benefit of examining consequences or intention we’d have to devise a system of laws which included every possibility for that law. We couldn’t just say it is against the law to speed unless the circumstances warrant speeding. This would require us to look into the empirical world of intent and consequences which aren’t allowed in Kant’s system of reasoning. In order to make a law even as simple as that truly universal even in our own domain we’d have to say, “ It’s against the law to speed unless you are a police officer on duty, unless you are a military man under emergency recall, unless you are a woman in labor or about to be in labor, unless your driving an ambulance, etc.,. The law doesn’t do this for a few reasons. First they’d have to come up with every possible scenario for every law they intended to make. They would inevitably leave one out and whoever violated it would be subject to the punishment because that event wasn’t included in the law. Not too many people would find it rational to condemn a man on something left out by a technicality that should have been included in the law. Also the law changes as people and times change. All of the possible scenarios for every possible law would have to be continuously rewritten. This would pose an insurmountable task for any governing body rational or not. When we examine why a police officer, a military man on recall, a woman in labor, or any other person is allowed to speed and go unpunished when caught when it is against the law we can see it has nothing to do with the metaphysical world or the act itself but solely the intent and consequences of what goes on in the empirical. There is a reason each of these and in other circumstances people are allowed to speed. In each of those cases they do so with the intent to assist someone, which will have an effect on the consequences. In each of those cases it should be evident that most of the time the only reason any of those people are transgressing the law and committing that act in the first place is solely related to their intent in regards to the consequences if they don’t. Now let’s look at these scenarios being judged without regard to intent. The first scenario is that it would be truly universal and no one would speed and they would be left with the consequences whatever they may be but the person would be moral. What good would it do that person or the world to have this moral policeman with no one saved or no crime thwarted because of his haste? What good would it do that person or the world for the woman to have miscarried her baby instead of rush to the hospital? In Kant’s world they’d have nothing more than the moral satisfaction of adhering to principles and imperatives out of duty because it was right. We have one other scenario if we were to judge this by reason alone. Let’s say each one of these refused to obey or for whatever reason transgressed this law. Without regard to intent they’d receive the same punishment as everyone else who broke that law. Imagine this two people standing before a judge both for speeding. Both were going the same speed, same car, and we'll even say going to the same place. We'll make one a pregnant woman who's water just broke and the other a bright young new doctor fresh out of med school just running a little late. I don't see how a supreme and pure reason can find it logical that both of these people if both are to be punished at all should be given the same thing. In the world we live in today even if the woman were actually charged it's most likely because of her intent and consequences her punishment would be waived. There are actually laws on the books called Good Samaritan laws made for people who commit infractions of the law but had good intent and these things have happened. Everything from breaking someone's wheel lugs when changing a tire, blowing an electrical system when giving a jump, to cracking ribs performing CPR. In Kant's system the intent would not matter. If you committed the act of harming them or their property in the process you would bear the burden. Who would ever stop to help anyone? For that very reason the Good Samaritan laws were made. In these scenarios the intent outweighs not only the act but also the consequence. These examples are what happens when we take a look at regard to intent. Actions done in regard to consequence is much the same way. In class we discussed a man loaning a man a dollar because he knew he'd get it back. In Kant's system you'd be using him as an ends to a mean which you can't do. If you refuse the man a dollar, he is still in need of a dollar, and what good have you done him or you. You end up with neither standing to gain. That may work in the metaphysical world but that's not how things go out in the empirical. Here are two examples of that. The first is the give a penny take a penny tray you see in stores. Let's be honest about why we ever leave or take a penny. We don't leave one in there because we have a burning desire to fulfill the duty of some categorical imperative. We leave one in there because we know (hope) we'll get it back. When we take a penny from the tray we justify this and say to ourselves that we have put in a penny before. Even if we haven't left a penny in ages we'll still take one and tell ourselves we have indeed put in a penny before and next time we have some change we'll drop a penny in. These things here are acts done from hypothetical imperatives in regards to consequence. I'll use a more extreme example, people who give blood. Now lot's of people do give blood for no other reason than they've got some to give and feel like giving it. A lot though have in the back of their mind and sometimes the people drawing it will even tell you or print out in their informative brochures that you should do this because some day you or someone you know may need it. Imagine a world where you could not act hypothetically and still be moral. Imagine a world where if it could not be done categorically it could not be done. Should no one then give blood or leave their pennies unless they can do this categorically? Or should they still do this because the act in itself is good they themselves are just wrong? If acting categorically were a necessity in either of these instances there would be a whole lot less pennies as well as blood in the bank. I agree with Kant that people are ends should not be treated as means to an end. That is the ideal situation but again in the empirical world not always the case. The military is a perfect example of this. In the Marines, in which I served, it is even written 1. Mission Accomplishment then 2. Troop welfare. Such is the same in most branches of the military in most countries. How many countries do you think would be willing to give up their military until the day they can put troop welfare ahead of accomplishing the mission? Do you even think you could find one general in one country who found that good strategy or beneficial to their country as a whole? Where I disagree with Kant is what makes something moral or immoral. According to Kant this would be reason. I hope to have shown that intent and consequences are not irrelevant to the equation and that these two things, the former more so than the latter, being almost as important if not as important as the act itself. Kant has taken everything out of the empirical and placed it in a metaphysical world. What Kant has suggested may work very well in the metaphysical world but it’s practical application in the empirical world, the world where most of us live most of the time, is lost for many of us. The biggest problem I have with Kant’s logic is exactly what he prides himself on. He takes in to account neither intentions nor consequence. People base what is right and wrong in their own actions as well as the actions of others by the consequences and intent. Counter Argument: It seems fair that if we are all equal ends in a kingdom of rational
beings that we should all receive the same judgment for our acts.
It also seems fair that the standard for what is right that is applied to
every act by every rational being be the same.
How could we say we have been fair or reasoned justly when we have
merited one man this and another that when they have both done the same act?
How can we even talk about fair and what should be used to judge this and
what is right if there is a different set of criteria for every rational being.
Each one would be also be right in their own mind.
One could pick and choose the standard they wanted.
When felt they are accused wrongly one could just change the standard
used. In Kant’s system there is
one system of reason not multiples systems trying to cohabitate with each other.
If there is only one reason that is supreme that operates in a
metaphysical frame work the same act could not be right and at the same time
wrong. Since this would be the case each rational being would have to be judged
according to each of these acts which were already predetermined by reason right
or wrong and regardless or their intent or consequence receive what was merited
them right or wrong for their acts. Response: If you were to always solely judge someone on the act in essence you’d
punish the wicked with the just. Let’s
use another example that happens every now and then. We have something in our cart at the store on the bottom or
in our hands and we pay for all of our items and intend to pay for this item as
well. Through our own negligence or
that of the cashier we walk out of the store with the item unpaid for and that
fancy device that makes the buzzers at the door go off still on.
It is against the store policy and punished to the full extent of the law
as well as the policy of the law to take items that are not paid for by us out
of the store. Whether we meant to
or not as soon as we were out of the store we have broken the law.
Using Kant’s system of the act itself since there were people in the
store at the time this wouldn’t even qualify as burglary but we’d have to
charge them with robbery. There
would be no allowance for not knowing the law and there would be no such thing
as an honest mistake. There would
be no such thing as a second chance. Could
we make that a universal law and apply it even to ourselves?
To say that you could and suggest that you used reason to do this is very
questionable. In fact what would
happen and has throughout history is those around or the ones enforcing the law
would look at the customer and see their hands full of goods they have indeed
paid for. They would know and see
that the customer had paid for the other items in there possession.
In many cases they’d even find items exceeding the price of the item
that slipped by. They would see that the person had intent either to pay
for the item or that they had meant to leave it but didn’t. Once this intent was determined they’d either be allowed to
leave the item or pay for it and that would be the end of the matter.
We wouldn’t just indiscriminately charge and lock up everyone who sets
off the stores buzzer. Who would find that reasonable? The evidence in the empirical
world suggests we couldn’t. If
this is not correct to do so and we are rational beings why is this allowed to
be done? If you were do to this in
Kant’s system one should see that you system you violate and create a
contradiction to Kant’s imperative that we are ends, should be treated as ends
and not the means to an end. In a
system that operates as such adherence to maxims we have reasoned becomes the
ends and people become the means to that end.
Since we live in the empirical world not a metaphysical one it would be
proper to use Kant’s system as a guideline or basis for what is right but not
the end all be all. We should
strive and set for ourselves as a benchmark to follow universal maxims out of
duty to the imperatives discerned by reason.
On judging what has actually happened in the empirical world though we
should do this in the empirical world itself, examining the intent and
consequences instead of merely in the metaphysical which can not evaluate what
was done but only tell us what we should strive to do.
Read My Guest book! Tech Advantage© 2000
| ||||||
