Kant goes onto to make three propositions about duty. The first being that actions are good when undertaken solely for the sake of duty. However, people tend to conform to duty out of other interests. They may have an immediate inclination, like a shopkeeper who gives everyone the same price, not because shopkeepers have a duty to do this, but because it is in his best interest to have a fair price (397). The second proposition is that an action from duty, "has its moral worth not in the purpose to be attained by it but in the maxim in accordance which it is decided upon"(399), and the moral worth does not matter if the object of the action is realized but that they do it out of duty. If an action is done solely out of duty it is because the actor recognized an a priori moral principle. The third proposition is that, "duty is the necessity of an action from respect for the law"(400). All living things can act out from instinct, and in random situations it could lead to something beneficial. Rational beings see that there is a moral law and their actions are out of respect for it. Moral law cannot be based off of specific situations but it must make sense in all situations, being universal. The law of morality causes you to ask the question, "can you also will that your maxim become universal law? If not then it is to be repudiated"(403).
In the beginning of section 2, Kant admits that, "even most of our actions are in conformity with duty"(407), and that it is near impossible to find actions done solely out of duty. However, Kant insists that we should not lose heart. We should recognize that we could not get universal laws from specific situations since they are all dependent of specific circumstances. No single experience can be the source for universal law and applied to all situations.
Now in our society we can see elements of Kant, and elements concerned merely on the outcome. In our society today are we leaning more towards Kant in that we applaud actions only because of their moral worth or solely based on their outcomes? Both are present in today’s society, but which is more prevalent?
4 comments:
To answer your question of whether our society today leans more toward Kant in that we applaud actions only because of their moral worth or solely based on their outcomes, my opinion would be that we applaud actions based on their outcomes in today's society rather than their moral worth. I think in society today it is more prevalent to applaud the outcomes of actions because I feel the end or outcome is what people strive for.
Also in answering your question of whether we, in today’s society, are more concerned of an action’s moral worth or of its outcome, I would answer that although we may want to convince ourselves that our actions are moral in all ways, we, for the most part, may be subconsciously more concerned with the outcome. Furthermore, this is due to the fact that our society has become more subjective and individualistic; we are more concerned about the benefits of an action. The objectivity and universality that Kant argues for, although we may want to think that it is present, is clearly not. In fact, I would go on to say that although we may believe that we are doing good for all people in society, there is always a percentage of the population that does not agree with a certain action; therefore, it cannot be considered universal law. For example, apart from my own views, the healthcare package that was just passed by Congress is thought to be of moral worth to the majority of the American society, but the country is divided in their beliefs on this agenda. Therefore, this proves my statement that we subconsciously think that our actions have moral worth, but we are more concerned with the outcome, especially in viewing my example of healthcare where this legislation may not be the best thing for the country, but it was still passed in a non-universal sense for its outcome.
I think you pose a good question that many people don't really think about. People would like to think that we applaud actions due to there moral worth, however in reality its the outcomes that mean more to us. Society is more focused on what they can get out of doing something not on what they are doing. Like Kant says moral law has to universal and there is a large amount of the population that doesn't feel the same way about certain things as the rest. By saying no single experience can be the source for universal law, it means that since it only happens to one specific person it cannot be a moral law? If it's an experience that other people have had does it make it a universal law or it's universal law if every single person agrees on it.
In answer to your question, I believe that it is both. While society as a whole does judge an action based on duty or the actual merit of the action in question, the individual primarily acts based on desired outcomes. Tabloids are now calling Angelina Jolie “Santa Angelina” because of her philanthropic involvement in various third world countries. Angelina could be acting to simply help or for vain glory. Either way she is looking directly toward a specific desired outcome. However, we as a society realize that as a member of the rich elite she has a duty to help those less fortunate; however, now that I think about it, it occurs to me that were we regarding her actions as good only insofar as they serve a particular duty, than praise would not be necessary as she is simply doing something she is supposed to do…hence the reason why I don’t get praise from Professor Vaught for completing a required philosophy reading, as it is my duty as a philosophy student.
Post a Comment