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.
5 comments:
Your blog post helped me to understand this chapter of "Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals" much better. However, I still have one question regarding imperatives that you might be able to help me out with. I understand that the categorical imperative that Kant decides upon is to act in a manner that could be applied as a universal law. However, what if an individual thinks that what they are doing is a universal law, but is not universally agreed upon? In respects to the example you used about giving to the poor at Christmas time, what if there was someone who didn't believe that we should give to the poor because those people did something wrong that forced them to be poor. Would this make it so that giving to the poor is not a moral act, as it is not a universal law? I'm not sure if I made my question clear enough, but if you can help me understand what Kant means, I'd be extremely greatful.
Jaime, I don't think it would matter because that person who thinks it's wrong to give money to the poor is not in agreement with the general notion and thus is an exception. Since his opinion is an exception to the categorical imperative and exceptions cannot be made because it is a universal law, his opinion wouldn't matter.
I'd have to say that I agree with Kant. I think that often times people do commit actions based on ulterior motives. In the case of giving to the poor, people do donate money to help a good cause. But at the same, there are individuals who also give money because it makes them feel better about themselves (the ulterior motive in the situation). An individual may only help out a charitable cause because it makes his/herself look good to other people. This is an unfortunate reality, but we need to accept it as the truth.
Jaime, I think that in that situation the person is not acting with moral value because they are acting against categorical imperatives. Categorical imperatives do not change because they are in accordance with universal law and are not conditional. Any "what if" situations would imply a condition therefor not being in accordance with categorical imperatives.
I really like the example given here about putting money in the buckets around the holiday season. If people just give money, I feel like they are essentially ignoring the situation. Obviously money is needed, but how are we supposed to learn from this and help change the wrongs in society if we just throw some money at the problem and tell ourselves that we did a good, moral deed. I think that it is instead more important to go out and really be involved in the situation in order for it to be considered moral.
Post a Comment