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."
2 comments:
I think that because all ethnic and religious groups were so isolated for such a long period of time (until travel became easier between civilizations, trade developed, mass media developed) different peoples have evolved into incredibly different people. I'm sure everyone likes the idea of all men being created equally, but they have not evolved equally. Certain groups of people have become more advanced in certain technologies and have adapted their moral systems to fit those technologies (think the invention of the birth control pill). People across the world should not be treated the same because we do not adhere to the same moral/societal standards. And we do not adhere to the same moral/societal standards because our societies and ways of life are incredibly different.
Chris, I think it's interesting that you identify Kant and Aristotle's view on intention, whereas I am not sure that is true for either. I will be interested to see how your views on this develop. But for Aristotle, intention seems like such an insignificant thing. Intention would be one of a number of other criteria and would not measure equally against them. Intention is a concern of Christian moral philosophy--knowing what is in one's heart.
Alex, so you are advocating the moral relativism that Kant is trying to combat? Your argument is, because we have developed differently, we should be treated differently? (I didn't know I was teaching an anarchist heretic!)
Post a Comment