* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Explain Kant`s understanding of Universal Maxims (33)
Survey
Document related concepts
Transcript
Explain Kant’s understanding of Universal Maxims (33) A maxim is a rule by which to live, generally a moral one as opposed to a legal law. Kant was a great believer in maxims, and he was a deontologist. Being a deontologist, Kant had a great sense of duty – this was a fundamental part of his philosophy. For the morality parts of his philosophy, he sticks strongly to the idea of a priori knowledge. As well as this, Kant’s way of thinking is that before carrying out a given action, one should consider whether or not that action should become a universal law. That is to say, if you do something in a certain situation, should that same thing be done by all people in the same situation? This brings us on to the Categorical Imperative. Kant uses this to help us know what actions are required and which are forbidden. They differ from hypothetical imperatives in that categorical imperatives require no reasoning, for instance “I ought to tell the truth”. Categorical imperatives are conditional, for instance “If I want x, I must do y”. “All imperatives command either hypothetically or categorically” Kant, 1797 Kant’s idea of duty works by saying that you should always do your duty, and this is what a given maxim should be – your duty. This creates moral goodness, as everybody does their duty, which is morally correct and therefore can become universal maxims. The idea of not using something as a means to an ends, similar to hypothetical imperatives, is an idea that Kant disagrees with. This is due to his deontological ideas of duty, whereby you should do things purely because it is your duty to do them, as opposed to it being because it is a means to an end. Kant’s German upbringing can be seen here, as everybody’s duties are essentially what the universal rules should be. “Kant’s understanding of Universal Maxims cannot be defended.” Discuss (17) At first glance, it seems that Kant’s understanding of Universal Maxims can be defended quite well, as much of it is indeed logical, and would make sense in most situations. Kant’s “universal law” is an example of a logical part of Kant’s theory, which appears to make sense: “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” Kant, 1785 This idea means that all situations are considered before they even occur, thus ensuring that many possible risks or bad outcomes from the actions are possibly removed prior to the event happening. Kant’s theory is related to the motives of events or actions, unlike many theories that only look at the consequences. Only looking at the consequences can very often go the wrong way as good intention can easily lead to bad outcomes, which do not necessarily need punishments because of them. The theory does however have its downsides, which are somewhat good arguments for universal maxims not being able to be defended. In the case of lying, a universal rule saying that you cannot lie will very often be a bad idea. For example, if a murderer was chasing an innocent victim, and they asked you which direction the victim had run, the morally correct thing to do would be to lie, however if a universal rule stated that you cannot lie, then you will have to give away the victim’s life. An absolute theory, such as universal maxims is usually not a good idea, as nothing outside of one’s own mind is ever certain, and therefore a situation by situation based set of moral ideas is the only way to do things. In defence of the murderer example, and of Kant’s universal laws theory, the morally incorrect thing of lying would not have been necessary if everybody did the morally right thing – in this case that is not trying to murder in the first place. In conclusion, I think that Kant’s understanding of universal maxims cannot be defended entirely, as absolute theories are not reliable enough for the real world. Sources: Religious Studies, by Sarah K. Tyler and Gordon Reid Ethical Studies, by Robert A Bowie Ethics Discovering Right and Wrong, by Louis P. Pojman