"Kantian Ethics" by Onora O'Neill is a highly condensed version of Immanuel's ethical code, "which is marked by an unswerving commitment to human freedom, to the dignity of man, and to the view that moral obligation derives neither from God, nor from human authorities and communities, nor from the preferences or desires of human agents, but from reason"(O'Neill 175). O'Neill goes on to state the obvious, that "his [Kant's] writings are difficult and systematic" (175) but she divulges a method to keep Kant's audience sane. O'Neill says that to understand Kant, it is important to keep three concepts distinct from one another: (1)Kant's ethics, (2)"Kant's ethics", and (3)Kantian ethics.
So much clearer.
(1)Kant's ethics are contained in his writings of the 1780s and 1790s, which includes "Ground work of the Metaphysics of Morals." It is in this work that Kant introduces his idea of maxims, or fundamental principles of action, that we ought to adopt. The "Categorical imperative" aims at a universal moral code, which would be ideal. It is from a respect for others that Kant strives to establish a Categorical imperative. Since all humans have the capacity for reason, then we must treat all humans equally. To treat everyone equally, we must first set up principles on how to act in every situation. Thus, we have the Categorical imperative, in five formulations.
(2)"Kant's ethics" are ideas that show up so often in Kant's writing that they have "acquired an idependent life as elements of Kant's ethics." "Kant's ethics" have been the subject of numerous criticisms, most of which having to do with Kantian ideas that conflict with each other, ideas that are empty and shapeless, and ideas that are too strict to apply in every situation.
(3)Kantian ethics is an umbrella term used to refer to anything that is of "quasi-Kantian positions or commitments in ethics." So, essentially, Kant's ethics+"Kant's ethics"+ anything of quasi-Kantian concern= Kantian ethics. Not so bad, is it? For example, John Rawls, who features many of Kant's views in his own work falls under the broad term of Kantian ethics.
If your brain is fried, don't be alarmed. Old Ima tends to have that effect on people.
2 comments:
If any given person believes that he or she is acting freely, would the on-looking gang members (mentioned in the November 9th blog) be acting freely? They seem to choose their own maxims, with something greater than themselves in mind. To be realistic, it is fairly obvious that their membership in a gang severely biases and controls their actions in a way that is not necessarily best for all of humanity. Despite freely and rationally choosing their own maxims, the members were not acting morally, because they did not have the universal good of humanity and others in mind. However, is their lack of freedom--due to gang membership--at all similar to a functioning society’s lack of freedom due to structured government and the laws it enacts? We would assume not, because we hope that the laws enacted by our government strive for a greater good. However, not all of us voted for or believe in currently enacted laws, but still must abide by them; therefore, our ability to choose freely for ourselves is impeded upon, isn’t it? How would Kant address the gang members, and the dissenting members of society? Are we better able to accomplish moral action than the man who is governed by the gang?
If any given person believes that he or she is acting freely, would the on-looking gang members (mentioned in the November 9th blog) be acting freely? They seem to choose their own maxims, with something greater than themselves in mind. To be realistic, it is fairly obvious that their membership in a gang severely biases and controls their actions in a way that is not necessarily best for all of humanity. Despite freely and rationally choosing their own maxims, the members were not acting morally, because they did not have the universal good of humanity and others in mind. However, is their lack of freedom--due to gang membership--at all similar to a functioning society’s lack of freedom due to structured government and the laws it enacts? We would assume not, because we hope that the laws enacted by our government strive for a greater good. However, not all of us voted for or believe in currently enacted laws, but still must abide by them; therefore, our ability to choose freely for ourselves is impeded upon, isn’t it? How would Kant address the gang members, and the dissenting members of society? Are we better able to accomplish moral action than the man who is governed by the gang?
Post a Comment