Moral action? I Kant tell

So it’s getting close to that time of the year. I know Halloween hasn’t even happened yet but pretty soon we’ll begin to hear those bells on street corners synonymous with the holiday season. We all know how it goes, you walk by, slip a dollar into the bucket and walk away feeling that you have done something good. In all fairness, yes, such an action is a decent gesture. One would agree that it is people’s moral duty to help others, less fortunate people. Unfortunately, Kant would say that there may be other motives behind such actions and just participating in them isn’t necessarily being moral. “…it is always doubtful whether it [the action] is really done from duty and therefore has moral worth.” (Kant 406) Well that sure takes the wind out of our morality sails. What Kant is saying is that behind every action, there is a way to find an ulterior motive. If an action is performed by obligation of duty, and not through duty alone, then it is not truly a moral activity. Kant even goes on to say that it is impossible to find a single action that can be attributed to purely duty. So how are we supposed to act morally if everything we do can be attributed to something else? There must be some set of rules or laws which can determine if our actions are moral… nope. Kant states that we cannot derive some code of morality based on our experiences. Each circumstance is different and requires a reading that one universal set of morals would not be able to explain. Also, we cannot find morality through looking at examples. This is because morality is priori in nature. Therefore we are unable to fit different experiences into the concept of morality for all circumstances are different (in terms of action, motive) and would need to be assessed as such.

Well I don’t know about you but I can’t help but feel discouraged. Not only does Kant say that most actions are just through the obligation of duty and not through duty alone, but he also says that it is impossible to find any action that is done through duty alone. There is a brighter side to this seemingly bleak look on morality. Through a better understanding of the priori nature of morality, one can progress morally and gain a better sense of morality. Imperatives are the formula or reason’s demands. These objective principles give us a better sense of morality (413). If one understands that these imperatives are a priori, one can act in a matter that they would want to be seen as a universal law. For example, help others in need because that is what you feel should be the preexisting universal law. So next time you hear that bell ringing as you walk through time square, don’t feel disheartened and refrain from slipping in a dollar or two.

You Kant Do That on Television

Kant begins this section by describing how in order for us to morally judge our actions, we must will our maxims into universal laws in order to ground them as those in pure reason. However, when it is the case that we do actions that inherently contradictory, we are not willing our maxims into false universal laws (which according to Kant is impossible) or even believing the opposites of our maxims to be true. Instead, our inclinations force us to view the categorical imperative twice, once with pure will and again with a will tainted by our inclinations. This allows us to transform the universal law into generality. In turn, we use this generality to make exceptions for ourselves (but just this one time, I swear.) and perform the contradictory action.
This can be seen when one considers those who refer to themselves as “social smokers.” When they do not smoke on their own, they are following what appears to be a universal law of not smoking. However when placed in a social situation where others are smoking, their inclination towards smoking allows them to say “I’m at a party/bar/whatever; it’s ok to make this exception.”
This is also one of Kant’s ways of proving the necessity of a priori principles. Because we view our actions with the taint of inclination afterwards, we must use a priori ideas to judge our actions because that can be done without inclination regardless of whether the action actually happens.
Kant also goes on to speak about how in our actions, we must never treat people as purely a means. We instead must regard each rational creature involved as an end in of themselves. This is done by having any other rational party be completely in agreement and in understanding of what they are doing, how they are helping you, and what your goal is. Thus it becomes duty to keep up your fair share of the bargain whatever it may be.
Thus when borrowing money, if you attempt to do so without any intent to return said money and lie to the person you are attempting to borrow money from, you are in error, for this is treating someone as simply a means. But if you borrow money with full intent to repay and make it clear that you will, you are respecting the will of the other rational being involved and therefore treating them as an end in of themselves and not just a mean.

Transition from...

Immanuel Kant states that there is nothing good in excess except a good will. This is said mainly because unlike some virtues, such as courage or perseverance, a good will cannot be used in accordance to evil. A good will is not considered good due to the actions a person takes, it is intrinsically good and is more desirable than any action which comes from it, or the total sum of the actions which have come about because of it.

Having given a decent explanation of what a good will is, Kant sees that there may be an issue with nature by assigning reason to be the commander of will. Nature gives every complex creature a specific end- happiness. Apart from giving us a specific end, nature also provides a means for us to attain happiness, which is called instinct. Although instinct provides a general means of attaining happiness, rational thought impedes this process by creating more trouble rather than simplifying the path to happiness.

This brings Kant to describe the idea of a will that is to be revered in itself, without considering the actions which came about because of it. This brings about the concept of duty which contains a limited good will, which causes the true good will to be seen more radiantly by contrast. An example given, is that of a shopkeeper. As a shopkeeper, prices for goods sold within the shop remain constant for whoever wishes to purchase them. The level of prices, which are constant for everyone, are done for his advantage and not because it was his duty to do so. The moral worth of an action does not lie in its expected effect

Kant then defines duty as: "the duty of an action from respect for law". And follows by describing the defining the law as: "I ought to never act except in such a way that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law". All of a persons actions should be in accord with the universal law. With this figurative moral compass a person can easily tell what is a good inclination and what is a bad inclination, and would only perform the behavior which is good.

This would then however, give rise to the tendency to rationalize against strict laws and cast a shadow of doubt on their necessity. By being doubtful, people will begin to make the laws better suited to their own wishes, which begins to corrupt the laws themselves. This then pushes common human reason into the field of philosophy.

What have you learned from your colleagues?

I am curious about how inter-student learning works, and like Socrates, I proclaim my ignorance in this matter. In particular, I am interested in it because I want this blog to function as a space where students can develop the concepts that they encounter in the readings or lectures.

I would like to know what things you have learned, philosophically, from your fellow students and how it happened. It could pertain to this class or another. I assume one place that inter-student learning takes place is during study sessions for exams.

Please feel free to be candid.

Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Wait … What?!

    Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals is Immanuel Kant's first venture into moral philosophy. He argues for an a priori basis for morality, which means knowledge independent of experience. The preface begins with breaking down Greek philosophy into 3 parts. Logic is the study of thought. Physics is the study of how things happen in the world. Ethics is the study of how things ought to happen in the world of human beings. It goes on to say that philosophy can also be broken down into either "pure" or "empirical." Pure deals without experience, while empirical deals with the objects we experience around us. In this book we will be looking from the pure view.

Kant will identify the basic principles of moral philosophy that occur tot us without any experience. He will also be critical of philosophers that don't believe this. Kant states that we make intuitions about morality and that we assume that moral actions work for people all the time, which may not be true. We, as human beings, have to use moral laws in every aspect of life. Kant says that it is important that we develop a clear understanding of moral principles so that we can keep our moral responsibilities in check.

Kant has a similar view of morals as Aristotle had. He believes actions are not truly moral if they only appear to be moral but don't have the right intentions behind them. Like Aristotle, who believed that a virtuous person couldn't be virtuous unless he had the right intention behind the action.

According to Kant, human nature - that is, being hungry, tired, etc – should not have an effect in moral decisions. We need a universally applicable concept. The term a priori is extremely important in understanding how Kant would like us to understand moral philosophy. No experience is necessary in his mind. Kant believes in rational ideas that makes sense to all people, but he wants to make these stronger.

Should morals be the same across the world? Should everyone be treated the same? For that matter should all laws be treated the same? Why in Iraq are women treated so unfairly when in America they would be treating differently? Why in Texas would I get the death penalty for a crime, when in Alaska I wouldn't for the same crime?

The goal of Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals is to establish the "Supreme principle of morality."

Critical Thinking and Electronic Texts: Distraction

I am including below a link to a blog on the NYTimes with a debate, of sorts, between a number of literacy and technology experts on the topic of electronic reading. This is something that has fascinated me for a while, because I am something of a bibliophile. I think I am finally at the point where I could narrate what I take to be an interesting account of learning how to read. Obviously, by the latter I don't simply mean the interpretation of the words on the screen or on the page, but the active engagement with a text, which is really what reading is all about.

The debate on electronic versus paper reading would seem to be a simple, at first glance: do people have a more difficult or an easier time in reading from a screen? But in fact there are a number of related questions about the process of reading--the comprehension and "active engagement," as I put it above, with the text, which are affected by the difference in medium. In particular, these experts seem agreed that there is a tendency to distraction and a dramatically shortened attention span that attends reading from a screen. This is partially an effect of our experience of reading hypertext, on sites like the NY Times or Wikipedia or whatnot, which in knowledge is always produced in small, quickly consumable segments. But a novel or a book of philosophy requires something quite different.

Check it out:
http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/14/does-the-brain-like-e-books/

I would be curious to hear your opinions, particularly since probably most of you have grown up in this digital environment ...

Debating Legitimacy

The argument surrounding non-lifesaving operations on children has two logical sides. Some people feel that these operations are ethically legitimate because it is in the child’s best interest to have them done. Those opposed to these operations believe that it is illegitimate because we are changing the child from who they were born as so that they can fit the superficial standards set by today’s society.

Those who believe that a procedure that enhances or allows for better functioning of a child’s body is legitimate have a few different reasons for their opinion. Though a procedure is a non-life saving operation, it will most likely better the child’s life in the future. If a child is born with a deformity and does not have any operations, they will most likely go on and live a life with some more troubles than other people. They will most likely grow up having difficulties doing daily tasks and may become self-conscious which will lead to many social issues in the future and as the child grows up he or she may not be able to function in society as well as someone who was born without a deformity. As Aristotle said, we cannot reach happiness if we are not successful and if we do not have friends. If we have the tools and the knowledge to do a procedure that would yield substantial benefits for the child in the future, then why not go through with the procedure? Why should this child suffer because of how they were born? Wouldn’t it instead be ethically illegitimate if we have the power to improve a child’s life and we do not do anything about it?

The opposite side of this argument is very understandable as well. These people believe that we are born the way we are, and that is how God intended us to be. We are each unique and each have varying amounts of imperfection, some may just have more than others. They feel that the child is too young to undergo a procedure in which they have no say in the matter and that changes them from the person they were born as. They also feel that just as it is not ethically legitimate for these procedures, it is not ethically legitimate to judge the people who were born with whatever it is that makes parents want to make a change. They feel that the problem is in society, not in how the child was born; that the pleasures associated with being “normal” are socially molded and thus not ethically legitimate. We should accept everyone as who they are and then there would not be a push for operations on children to enhance them. They also may feel that there is too much risk involved in a procedure that is not being done to save a life.

I think that one’s stance on this topic has a lot to do with today’s society vs. traditional teaching. Those people who are for the procedures think that it is legitimate because we have the knowledge and the abilities to improve a child’s life not only now, but in the future as well. Others think that it is ethically illegitimate because we are changing children from who they were born as and who they were meant to be, and most of the time it is because our society will not accept them otherwise.

Superman

In After Virtue, MacIntyre primarily discusses the implications of Nietzschean philosophy with some comparisons to Aristotelian philosophy. In order to comprehend Nietzschean philosophy, one must first understand what the Übermensch is. The Nietzschean man, the Übermensch, and ‘the great man’ are all similar names for someone who doesn’t look to the community for virtues, but looks for them inside himself (257). By not learning from the examples set out by others, and isolating himself, he doesn’t find any good outside of himself.
We know that in order to be virtuous according to Aristotle, one must fulfill the prerequisites of virtue; one of which is community. The Aristotelian point of view is that people find virtue in those that surround them; therefore; someone who has no community to live in cannot have virtue. Virtue is linked to the relationships that one has with others, but the person who is essentially “the best” and cannot learn anything from anyone else, and must look to himself as the person to strive to be. ‘The great man’ is someone that is his own self sufficient moral authority (258).
MacIntyre later breaks down the Nietzschean ‘great man’ by describing it as a pseudo-concept. MacIntyre believes that the Nietzschean stance is not an actual alternative to individualistic livelihood, but the representation of the creation of a true alternative (259). He doesn’t fully support one side or the other, but he does show the short comings in each philosophy. He indicates that he enjoys the notion of a liberal individualistic viewpoint, but doesn’t fully agree with Nietzsche’s stance. He implies that though the Aristotelian tradition is intelligent and rational, but it is not one that he would choose. His final thoughts are that he likes and understands both arguments, but presents the third option of Marxism. When true Marxist socialism does not become turn to democracy or tyranny, then the Nietzschean ideal would work perfectly.
What is thought provoking is why MacIntyre chooses not to make a concrete decision on which philosophical ideal he follows. Is it possible to reconcile the differences between the Nietzschean and Aristotelian ideals and combine the two to create a single coherent idea or are they so inherently different that they cannot be reconciled? Is MacIntyre’s inclusion of the Marxist point of view simplify or complicate the differences between the two? MacIntyre provides a unique perspective on the works of these two philosophers shedding new light on old ideas.

Virtue Theory

Sorry Professor, your plea for a more interesting title was heard, but I was unable to answer it.

Greg Pence's "Virtue Theory" focuses on the many aspects of virtue and how it affects human behavior and character. Elizabeth Anscombe believes that the older ideas of morality, that one should do something, not because one wants to, but because it is morally right to do it (251), no longer holds true and have been confused with the beliefs of people in modern day. Alasdair MacIntyre adds to this by saying that society has combined and absorbed a plethora of different traditions, causing confusion and conflict in morals. MacIntyre gathers that the meaning of life will come “when a person belongs to a moral tradition which allows for a narrative order of a single life” (251), and not by jumbling many different beliefs together. Virtues can only thrive in particular types of societies, not all.

Many contributions were made in the history of ethics, in hopes of better understanding virtue theory. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle focused on virtues as the issue of ethics, studied the few major virtues (courage, wisdom, justice), and ranked the types of characters. Thomas Aquinas builds on their major virtues by adding, what he calls, the ‘theological virtues’ – faith, hope, and charity. Immanuel Kant tried to determine the core of moral character and virtue through examination of reason. Kant believed that completely rational people are virtuous because of a respect for a ‘universalizable’ moral law (252). However, this theory would negate any belief that people act virtuously by character. Susan Wolf says that, should a person really act in the way Kant describes, this person will have a dull, limited life.

Pence goes on to talk about courage and brings up two questions: if it is possible for one to be courageous without knowing specifically what courage is, and whether or not courage was connected to things like virtue or knowledge (253). Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle argue that courage is unaffected and not measured by time. They argue that it was not merely a trait that allowed one to overcome just any fear/obstacle, but worthy obstacles.

Reading on, it talks about ‘eliminatism’ and ‘essentialism. Anscombe and MacIntyre’s believe ‘eliminatism’ to be a conjecture that assumes a correct account of virtue would be able to abandon principle-based ethics (253), which Pence summarizes as “whether an ethical theory based entirely on character can do all the work of ethics” (254). Frederich Nietzche says that a person may want to help another for no particular reason, and simply because he/she feels like doing so; this answers Pence’s question: the ideals of character is insufficient to complete the work of ethics. ‘Essentialism’ would be the theory that virtues may not fundamentally share a “master virtue” (255), but they do share a common essence.

The chapter ends by discussing how each virtue rouses feelings, character and society. In turn, society inspires different virtues or vices, and this is based on the disputable claim that people have the ability to mold their character.

“Aristotle’s Account of the Virtues”

MacIntyre uses the “Nicomachean Ethics” as the text for discussing “Aristotle’s Account of the Virtues”. Virtues are a state of character in the aim for achieving the ultimate goal, happiness. True happiness can only be achieved through the cultivation of virtues to make a human life complete. Not all state of character are virtues. Many more state of character are vices. Aristotle uses the nature of the virtues and the vices for moral evaluation in order to achieve happiness.

In “Aristotle’s Account of the Virtues” Aristotle insists that virtues have a place in the life of individuals but also in the life of the city-state. He believes that the city-state is where the virtues of human life can be most noticed. The virtues are the qualities which will enable an individual to achieve personal well being through a life governed by reason and moral obligation. Through the practice of virtues, we can make choices to achieve what is good for man.

According to Aristotle for each virtue there are two corresponding vices. For example, courage is between rashness and timidity. He speaks about the virtue of justice within a community. He states that the intellectual virtues of the virtues of character cannot be separated. Intelligence requires knowledge of the good, so man cannot be intelligent unless he is good. I would argue that you do not have to be intelligent to be generous. This is why Aristotle’s interrelation of the virtues is not a clear criteria on which to judge if a person is good or not. He also speaks about the virtue of friendship and how a community who has a common purpose of realizing good forms bonds of friendships.

He argues that the virtues are not to be available to slaves or barbarians and therefore that is for the good of men. Only the rich and people of high status could achieve certain virtues. Craftsmen and tradesmen are inferior and have no place in the virtues. His limitations do not affect his understanding of the importance of the virtues in our lives as it relates to enjoyment, pleasure or happiness in life and his account of practical reasoning.

True Accounts of Surreal Adventures in Non-Euclidean Mountain Climbing

(Hey, you said you wanted more creative titles!)

As we discussed the motivations behind actions in class the other day, and eventually made the transition to discussing universals and particulars as they relate to knowledge, I began to consider the connections between the two.  It was established that particulars always involve perceptual knowledge.  "Perceptual knowledge" seems as if it could be synonymous with "belief", so from here on I will use the two terms interchangeably.

In some of the latest chapters of Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle begins, in his discussion of the incontinent person, to conjecture as to whether actions are motivated by belief or by action.  Seeing as actions always involve a particular case (i.e. event, instance, etc.), it seems logical to assume that they would also involve particular knowledge (belief).  Therefore, could it be said that, because of their 'particular' nature, actions are always motivated by belief, and cannot be controlled by universal knowledge?

Comments are quite welcome. Show some blog-love.