Kant
said that while we are all free, rational, and autonomous beings, it is
impossible for us to will an irrational/immoral action into a universal law. For instance, if lying, became a universal law, it would justify every lie that was made in
this world. As a rational agent, a human being cannot will maximum act as lying. But what if a person came running to hide in your home and begged you not to tell the ax murderer where he was? Such situation would lead to a conflict of duty, which is to either save your friend (lie) or to follow maximum act according to universal law (tell the truth). At this point, your decision to lie or tell the truth will depend entirely on what you feel morally obligated to do. Kant rejects the "consequential thinking": a rational being cannot decide what is right or wrong based on consequences. I completely agree. How do you know if an action won't lead to a bad consequence or a good consequence? What if you did lie, but it still led to a bad consequence by having you and your friend killed? What if you told the truth, but the friend already snuck out the back door and left you defenseless?
Justice matter, for Kant, determines that moral law cannot be defined empirically (from experience). To be just is to follow the law, and the law is formed from reason. The "will" of a rational human is what motivates an action. Such action is permitted, as long as the will that motivates the action intends to discharge itself. In another words, doing a duty should not hinder another person's duty, or freedom. I really like the "traffic signal" example Alex Dileo brought up during class to explain how, as rational beings, we always give up some of our freedom to be more free. Traffic signals takes away the freedom from drivers to drive wherever he/she wants without any precaution. By doing this, the traffic light maintains a steady flow of traffic and prevents accidents. Policemen are also the embodiment of the law. They have the right to impede the freedom of those who may impede the freedom of other citizens. So therefore, policemen are in line with the universal law - a law that is to act externally in such a way that a free use The universal law of justice is acted externally in such a way that a free use of your will is compatible with the freedom of everyone else.
To not kill is also a universal law. However, there are some cases when it is completely necessary to kill, especially when one of those cases require you to defend your life. This is called, “the right of necessity”. Kant argues that one person can commit a violent act on another, even though violence was not attacked on him/her before because there is “no punishment threatened by the law that could be greater than losing his life (Justice, 156). Necessity has no law, and there are no acts of necessity that will ever make what is unjust legal. This may sound disconcerting because one can obviously argue that in order to protect someone, one must lie or kill. But just because something unjust cannot ever be “legal” does not make it utterly impossible to act on it. That is why Kant emphasizes that we are rational and FREE human beings.
Justice matter, for Kant, determines that moral law cannot be defined empirically (from experience). To be just is to follow the law, and the law is formed from reason. The "will" of a rational human is what motivates an action. Such action is permitted, as long as the will that motivates the action intends to discharge itself. In another words, doing a duty should not hinder another person's duty, or freedom. I really like the "traffic signal" example Alex Dileo brought up during class to explain how, as rational beings, we always give up some of our freedom to be more free. Traffic signals takes away the freedom from drivers to drive wherever he/she wants without any precaution. By doing this, the traffic light maintains a steady flow of traffic and prevents accidents. Policemen are also the embodiment of the law. They have the right to impede the freedom of those who may impede the freedom of other citizens. So therefore, policemen are in line with the universal law - a law that is to act externally in such a way that a free use The universal law of justice is acted externally in such a way that a free use of your will is compatible with the freedom of everyone else.
To not kill is also a universal law. However, there are some cases when it is completely necessary to kill, especially when one of those cases require you to defend your life. This is called, “the right of necessity”. Kant argues that one person can commit a violent act on another, even though violence was not attacked on him/her before because there is “no punishment threatened by the law that could be greater than losing his life (Justice, 156). Necessity has no law, and there are no acts of necessity that will ever make what is unjust legal. This may sound disconcerting because one can obviously argue that in order to protect someone, one must lie or kill. But just because something unjust cannot ever be “legal” does not make it utterly impossible to act on it. That is why Kant emphasizes that we are rational and FREE human beings.
It
is interesting to wonder what people will do when it comes to defending their
life. Picture a scene from Batman: The Dark Knight: two boats are stranded on
the ocean. One boat is filled with regular class citizens who have successful
jobs and family. The other boat is filled with prisoners who are murderers,
thieves, etc. Both groups of people are given an explosive device to blow the
other ship before the time that both ships will explode comes. As suspense
escalates, people in both ships come up with reasons why the other ship should
be blown. It is very interesting to see that regular citizens felt that they
had more of the right to live because they were not convicts. By measuring the
amount of law breaking, citizens were able to come to a unanimous conclusion
that those who broke the laws and were caught, deserved to die. However, the
convicts also felt they had the right to impede the right of the other group of
people, simply because they felt they had the right to defend their lives. What
do you think? Under this circumstance, which group of people do you believe has
more of the right to impede the right of the other? If you were to push a button that chose one of the boats, which would you choose? Why? Which group do you think have the "right of necessity"?
No comments:
Post a Comment