(Not this guy- this dude is Aristotle)
(Yah this guy... Doesn't he look like fun.)
Kant looked at what Aristotle had wrote and said, Yah it's good, but it's not the best (paraphrasing...). He decided that people shouldn't be doing things their own end (happiness) because it is not as morally righteous as someone doing good as an end in itself -doing good for goodness sake. You should obey your duty to good and decide what that is through reason and logic. It's better than self-interest.
He also critiques Aristotle that virtues can lead to bad things if misused. For instance, villains can be courageous and loyal -"good virtues"- to achieve their own happiness, but their actions aren't moral/ fulfilling. It's all about intent. You should therefore do go out of our own volition regardless of your desire to be happy. Genuine moral worth derives from this duty, and it does not matter if something good comes from it -it is good intrinsically.
By this line of resoning, Kant suggests Practial Love should be placed above Pathological Love and Reason should be placed above Sympathy and Feelings. I think Kant was an Aquarius. Researching... 22 April 1724 - Damn it...he's a Taurus. How'd that happen? Of course he was born on the cusp, which means he has Aries tendencies... that makes more sense.
Now my notes get a little harder to follow. There were important terms/ definitions given. I'll list them here:
Deontological Ethics: Explores: What should I do? -Obligation as a human being.
Morals: Something you need to do because it's right
Will (itself): Want to do something; power to do something; capability of doing something; motive
Categorical Imperative: Detached Duty/ Command
-Different Kinds
-I must do X
-Absolute; Non-Consequential
Moral Imperative: Categorical Imperative
-Doing what is right with Good Will
-Only a Good Will is intrinsically good with no qualifications
Non- Moral Imperative: Hypothetical Imperatives
-If I want X, then I must do Y
-If I want Ice Cream, I must Pay for it. (Could steal it)
-If I want to be Happy, I must achieve the Virtues
-conditional; not necessarily true for everyone in any situation; Not Moral
This means things described as good -like helping the poor- are not good in themselves because they can be done for manipulative/ selfish reasons. All good things can be done with bad intent. For example, some countries help the poor so those masses can become dependant on those countries -Colonialism. There should be no motive behind a moral act -just duty. George Orwell would have loved this guy. He was always complaining about the government saying it was doing things for the greater good, which was later found out to be wrong and immoral -like Japanese concentration camps.
Kant argues that the good done should be appreciated regardless of whether it accomplishes anything, though true moral action with achievement is more highly praised. In other words, you get points for trying. The consequences of this unfortunately mean that if everyone acted out of duty and duty only with no self-interest, no one would be happy. No self-interest = no individual reasons. It's What you should do v. What you want to do. And even genuinely wanting to help someone is not as good as doing it out of duty.
John Proctor from The Crucible and Gandhi are examples of this principle. I also included Spiderman, but he seems like a less credible model of principle -specially after Spiderman 3... They gave esteemed actions done for moral duty to others. Proctor denounced the accusations that he was a witch (which would have made the Judge and town "right" in claiming people were witches) and took the noose for it. Gandhi refused to fight, and instead posed his opposition through peaceful protests. He wanted freedom, but not at the expense of anyone's life. For that he lost his own.
Kant argues genuine humanity lies on moral duty. Humanity is revealed when we act out of self-interest in line with morals and reasoning.
I'm always amused by philosophy of morality. I don't see how any human being can possibly handle the entire subject...it's a divine thing, and we can only strive to follow a perfect example. For me, that perfect example is Christ.
ReplyDeleteWhat does it matter of good is done with good intent or not? So long that it is done and done consistently, it is good. The problem is that good that is done without good intent is often inconsistent.
12
Pretty much.
ReplyDelete