To reinforce the main points presented above. Please review these two concrete examples of Kant applying Reason to right and wrong:
- Kant believes breaking promises is wrong. Why? Because when you make a promise, you must (it is IMPERATIVE) follow through on it. This is the logical point of promise-making. Otherwise, don’t make a promise. Now, we might be tempted to make exceptions for ourselves. We might say that we were in a really tough situation, so it is ok for ME to break my promises. Kant responds, did you say that you only made your promise until things got tough or only as long as it was convenient to you? You didn’t? Well, no EXCEPTIONS (universal and absolute application of the idea of ‘the promise’). Can’t do it? Don’t make promises, you immoral jerk.
- Another famous example is “Love thy neighbor” as an ethical obligation (not just a feeling). Jesus famously said this, and Kant wrote about it and agreed that it was a good moral principle: we should all love our neighbors. However, Kant notes that we can’t just love our neighbors when we are all EMOTIONALLY invested, maybe over the holidays or when we are in a good mood or because our neighbors are lovable anyway. Instead, if you are being REASONABLE, you love your neighbor (treat your neighbor with love) in all circumstances, even if you are in a horrible mood or they are the worst neighbor in existence.
Ultimately, when we do what is right, because we know it is right, Kant believes we are acting morally and according to our DUTY/OBLIGATIONS as humans to be rational. His name for intentionally doing what is right, because you know it is right (using his whole system of rational testing, of course) is GOOD WILL.
PROMPT
Respond to ONE of these questions:
- Focus on Kant’s belief that because we can choose to act in accordance to our Reason, we should. Do you believe that we have a duty to be rational, especially in our moral judgments? Or is morality something that cannot or should not be subject to rational argument?
- While Kant believes that we do not always act rationally and that sometimes we cannot (for example, a brain injury would excuse us from moral responsibility for lying, etc), he thinks that our capacity to REASON is fundamentally human and a good basis for a ethical framework that universally applies across all of humanity. Do you agree that this ‘solution’ is universal or as close to universal any ethical framework could get?
- Should we regard someone as being moral when and only when they intentionally and rationally do what is right? If a person reacts and instinctively helps someone else, is this different than when they deliberately consider the situation and make a choice? Explain why or why
