Friday, October 9, 2015
Stuck in the middle
While pretending to be Kant and Mill in the symposium, I realized my perspective on the moral rightness of actions changed. At first, I leaned more towards Kant, because The idea of the universal law and it applying to everyone was something I thought was right. However I I found that I believed that the moral rightness and wrongness does come from the consequences of an action. This being said, I am still stuck in the middle because even if someone did do something wrong but the consequences turned out to be good, I still believe that it was not a morally good deed. I also agree with Kant because of the categorical imperative. I believe if you say something is wrong, it should be applied to every situation like that as well. However if you do something that toy wouldn't consider right in general, but right in that moment, than that is not okay. The rules cannot be changed just for your situation. Then you would be a hypocrite. Kant also thinks that you should always treat everyone as an end in themselves, and that all citizens are at once both the authors and subjects of all laws. We as humans, according to Kant, are only fee if we follow the categorical imperative as well. I also think that the solution to any problem should create the greatest amount of good for the greatest mount of people. This is Mill's idea about the moral rightness and wrongness of an action is derived from this. I know it is sort of against the rules to be in the middle of Kant and Mill, but for me it is hard to just be on one side. I found that while participating in the symposium, I often wanted to argue the other side on both days, even though I couldn't. So as of right now I'm still undecided on which side I am on concerning Kant and Mill.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I understand the philosophies of both Kant and Mill can leave you "stuck in the middle." Kant and Mill are complete opposites when it comes to morality. Their contrasting views are striking when describing what is right or wrong. The idea of what makes an action morally good or not seems to be the main issue for debate. From the description you left, it seems you are being drawn by both views; however, once you decide for yourself whether the action or the consequence matters more to you, you will be able to decide if you are a Kantian or an Utilitarian.
ReplyDeleteI am in the exact same case. However, I was so sure that I agreed with Mill, and now, I don't know. Mill says that consequences matter, and I agree, but when Dr. Jhonson gave us the example of the patient dying in the hands of the doctor. I changed my mind. If the patient die, which is a bad consequence, the doctor is not the one that caused it, so he is not guilty. At this point you would say that I agree with Kant but not really. Kant says that consequences don't matter. So he basically states that, if someone is bad, but his/her actions cause good things, he/she is still bad and vice-versa. Also, I don't agree with Kant in the fact that it is always wrong to lie. In conclusion, I think that both philosophers have right and wrong beliefs. Your post is in accord with my thoughts.
ReplyDeleteI agree with not really being in alignment with either Kant or Mill. Trying to see things from either perspective was a bit like trying to wear someone else's glasses. Sure, if something is in the right place and at the right distance you might see some detail clearly, but still be unable to see the entire picture. I think that is also true for Kant and Mill. It is difficult to argue that either of them is wrong, exactly, but their rightness is of such narrow focus that everything else seems fuzzy.
ReplyDeleteSelena,
ReplyDeleteI completely understand where you are coming from. Often during the symposium I too wanted to argue on the side of the opposite philosopher during certain scenarios that were brought up. I think the problem with Kant and Mill is that they both have aspects to their philosophies that make sense by themselves. For instance, the second part/rule to Kant's categorical imperative that states that everyone should have their humanity respected and be treated as a free, rational, autonomous agent. I think the class would all agree that sounds like a morally correct rule and if people acted in accordance to it that would lead to positive outcomes. If you decided you were a Utilitarian it seems like you'd have to agree solely with Mill and reject everything that Kant said as false (or vise versa if you agree with Kant). Dr. J said that we can't be both, but that doesn't have to mean that we can't admit when the philosopher apposing our chosen position has a good point. I think rather than looking at it in terms of who is right and who is wrong, we should approach the decision in terms of who we most agree with. In the end it does come down to what Theresa stated previously--it's about action verses consequence, and when you figure out which matters more to you then you'll have your answer.
I definitely see your point, Selena. Depending on the situation, either Kant or Mill could seem totally right while the other seems totally wrong. Certainly in some of the moral dilemmas that came up during the symposium it was much easier to argue one side than the other. However, as Rachel and Theresa have said, it ultimately comes down to whether you value the action or the consequence more. Personally, I'm leaning more towards consequence, but I don't think it is wrong to choose action instead. It all comes down to personal values.
ReplyDelete