Can there be such a thing as a truly moral person?
Kant’s categorical imperative
creates a moral system where acts are judged based on their intent and not
their consequences. In order for an act to be considered moral, the maxim of
that action must be able to be a universal law. So, to be a moral person, all
of your actions must follow this maxim.
However, what happens if a scenario
cannot allow a moral decision? Take, for example, the scenario proposed in
class about the axe murderer. Your friend comes to your house to take refuge,
and the axe murderer asks you if your friend is hiding in the house. Most would
consider the moral decision in this scenario is to lie to the murderer in order
to save your friend.
However, based on Kant’s definition
morality, neither lying nor telling the truth is a moral decision. If one chose
to lie, the maxim resulting from this action is that it is ok to lie in any
scenario. If this maxim were to be a universal law, than society would not be
able to function. Every statement or promise made could not be believed, and as
a rational being, we could not function together as a society. Therefore, the
act of lying must be considered to be an immoral act. However, if one chose to
give up his friend, the maxim yielded from this decision could potentially be
that it is ok to let your friends die when you have the opportunity to save
them, which clearly should not be a universal law. Therefore, in this scenario,
there does not seem to be a moral action.
Therefore, if scenarios exist where
moral decisions are impossible, how can a person always be moral? By Kant’s
definition of morality, it’s impossible. Does this imply that Kant’s moral
system is flawed? I believe that this actually yields insight into the human
condition; the “right” act to do does not necessitate that it is moral. In
order for society to function and progress, morals must necessarily be broken
simply because a moral act is not an option, such as the case of the axe
murderer. The question then becomes, when no moral decision is available, which
immoral decision should be chosen? Perhaps Kant would answer that the act which
best preserves the autonomy of the human is the right.
Here is one
last question to consider: what is the cause for the impossibility of a
perfectly moral human? Why can there not always be a moral act in every
scenario?
Michael Scheriger
Under Kant's definition of the categorical imperative, I would say that you are correct. It is impossible for a person to act in an entirely moral way 100% if time. In fact I would say that Kant would likely argue against such a way of living. What I is important to note is the difference between what most people view as morality and how Kant views it. To most morality is acting in the right way and making the proper decision. To Kant however it would seem to me that morality is acting in a way that if all acted in such a way things would be right. To this I return to the point you made about the ax murderer, in this scenario there is no moral action, by Kant's definition, however there is a right action. Clearly the right action is to lie and save your friends life. The reason Kant says this action is immoral is that it is impossible for someone to definitively know the outcome of their action, so so act based on the unknowable outcome is improper. This does not mean that to lie is not the right thing to do it simply raises the point that the "right" thing to do is not necessarily the "moral" thing.
ReplyDelete