Wednesday, November 27, 2019
Kantian Philosophy Of Morality Essays - Kantianism, Free Essays
Kantian Philosophy Of Morality Essays - Kantianism, Free Essays    Kantian Philosophy of Morality        Kantian philosophy outlines the Universal Law Formation of the   Categorical Imperative as a method for determining morality of   actions. This formula is a two part test. First, one creates a maxim   and considers whether the maxim could be a universal law for all   rational beings. Second, one determines whether rational beings would   will it to be a universal law. Once it is clear that the maxim passes   both prongs of the test, there are no exceptions. As a paramedic faced   with a distraught widow who asks whether her late husband suffered in   his accidental death, you must decide which maxim to create and based   on the test which action to perform. The maxim "when answering a   widow's inquiry as to the nature and duration of her late husbands   death, one should always tell the truth regarding the nature of her   late husband's death" (M1) passes both parts of the Universal Law   Formation of the Categorical Imperative. Consequently, according to   Kant, M1 is a moral action. The initial stage of the Universal Law   Formation of the Categorical Imperative requires that a maxim be   universally applicable to all rational beings. M1 succeeds in passing   the first stage. We can easily imagine a world in which paramedics   always answer widows truthfully when queried. Therefore, this maxim is   logical and everyone can abide by it without causing a logical   impossibility. The next logical step is to apply the second stage of   the test. The second requirement is that a rational being would   will this maxim to become a universal law. In testing this part, you   must decide whether in every case, a rational being would believe that   the morally correct action is to tell the truth. First, it is clear   that the widow expects to know the truth. A lie would only serve to   spare her feelings if she believed it to be the truth. Therefore, even   people who would consider lying to her, must concede that the correct   and expected action is to tell the truth. By asking she has already   decided, good or bad, that she must know the truth.  What if   telling the truth brings the widow to the point where she commits   suicide, however? Is telling her the truth then a moral action   although its consequence is this terrible response? If telling the   widow the truth drives her to commit suicide, it seems like no   rational being would will the maxim to become a universal law. The   suicide is, however, a consequence of your initial action. The suicide   has no bearing, at least for the Categorical Imperative, on whether   telling the truth is moral or not. Likewise it is impossible to judge   whether upon hearing the news, the widow would commit suicide. Granted   it is a possibility, but there are a multitude of alternative choices   that she could make and it is impossible to predict each one. To   decide whether rational being would will a maxim to become a law, the   maxim itself must be examined rationally and not its consequences.   Accordingly, the maxim passes the second test.  Conversely, some   people might argue that in telling the widow a lie, you spare her   years of torment and suffering. These supporters of "white lies" feel   the maxim should read, "When facing a distraught widow, you should lie   in regards to the death of her late husband in order to spare her   feelings." Applying the first part of the Universal Law Formation of   the Categorical Imperative, it appears that this maxim is a moral act.   Certainly, a universal law that prevents the feelings of people who   are already in pain from being hurt further seems like an excellent   universal law. Unfortunately for this line of objection, the only   reason a lie works is because the person being lied to believes it to   be the truth. In a situation where every widow is lied to in order to   spare her feelings, then they never get the truth. This leads to a   logical contradiction because no one will believe a lie if they know   it a lie and the maxim fails. Perhaps the die-hard liar can   regroup and test a narrower maxim. If it is narrow enough so that it    
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
 
 
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.