WEEK 13: Immanuel Kant "Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals" Second Section

[Mateo Duque]

Class,

We reading the second section of Immanuel Kant's  "Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals." If you are following along in your textbooks, it is pages 991-1011. I'm in a rush right now, but later I will try to post questions to prompt discussion.

-Mateo Duque.

[William Sun]

"One need only look at the attempts to deal with morality in the way favored by popular taste." 

This is a great statement that Kant makes, this does not target a person as an individual but as a group or society as a whole. Popular taste to me means of the whole or of the norm, that basic common morals can easily be witnessed by looking at the similar behaviors and opinions of a wide variety of individuals of a society of even the world. Some common morals which are taught to us when young were to be respectful to others, especially elders, treat others the way you wish to be treated. Others are more heavily instilled into us such as not to abuse drugs and alcohol, not to kill, etc. These morals of which I believe have been taught to us all are instilled to us when we were children and something we're expected to teach to future generations. These morals have such a huge impact that many laws are in effect and passed due to the morals or the popular vote such as laws that prevent violence (such as murders, rapes and assault), drug abuse, and hate. I believe many of our morals may even be instilled into us like instincts. No one really has a pro attitude towards drinking, drug abuse, murder, and rape. When we first see it we are very often repulsed by these actions naturally, you may develop sweat, an increased heart rate, adrenaline rush and the feeling of uncomfort. Another example is trauma, for example, it's very common for soldiers to experience trauma and return to their homelands with Post-traumatic stress disorder. One develops this from emotionally painful and extreme trauma from these events which are categorized as "wrong", but one does not experience such stress and disorders from things deemed moral and common which brings us to the conclusion that morals of any society/of the human race are favored by the majority whether the morals may be instinctive or developed through experience. One can easily determine what people consider "right" by watching their common behaviors and what's "wrong" by seeing what actions are shunned and deemed punishable.

[bkzflyboi4]

"In this way all morals, which require anthropology in order to be applied to humans, must be entirely expounded at first independently of anthropology as pure philosophy, i.e., as metaphysics."

I believe Kant is trying to say if morals we live by or follow must not be tied only to human bounds; to have a human image. This is where I have mixed feelings about this quote. At one point, I can understand why removing the human element from morals would be a benefit to finding and applying universal laws. But some morals only make sense in human nature, better yet, only in the society the human race has created. Take for instance a moral I think is great:

 "If men had all they wished, they would be often ruined."

How, where, and whoever else can this be applied to? How can you remove the human element from this and still have a coherent lesson/advice? Maybe i'm looking at this the wrong way, but certain morals that are applied to humans only makes sense when they have an anthropology element.

[bkzflyboi4]

I also found this quote interesting and I agree with what you said in your post, but I also think its more than morals being instilled into us. When I read this I automatically thought of people abusing the popular opinion of the public's morality. Politics is one of them. In every single election, one way or another, religion somehow finds its way into being one of the top issues a candidate will talk about. Whether its abortion, legalizing gay marriage, etc., a candidate will immediately go to a state or states where the public shares their view on the issue, then cater to that demographic in order to get the most possible votes. I also thought of when someone challenges or has a different opinion of the an issue that the popular opinion the public has. I remember when the issue of the mosque being built first came up. The majority of the public hated it and the people who voiced a different opinion were verbally and/or physically assaulted.

[giazkhan]

Kant talks about how rational beings should think "end themselves" theory and looking at others the same way in the second section. This idea sounds similar to what utilitarianism seeks to get out of the society, which is to have as much as happiness as possible in a society with individuals making sacrifices. In case of this argument, Kant is telling the individuals in the society to focus on the bigger picture and think about a natural law which achieves happiness for everyone rather than just the individual himself. Even though this theory is a progressive and an unselfish one, I personally believe that it is not easily achievable. Mostly humans have a tendency to use each other in order to get something and this way of thinking almost seems natural to humans. What Kant is saying is a very utilitarian way of thinking and if it can be achieved then I believe that humans would be living much happier lives. Rather looking for a way to step over one another, we would seek to help each other and be there in time of need but unfortunately, majority of the population don't think like Kant did.

[NatashaPersaud]

Totwatie Persaud
"We can’t get our concept of morality initially from
examples, for we can’t judge whether something is fit to be
an example or model of morality unless it has already been
judged according principles of morality."

I have no idea what this is means, not the meaning behind it but because of the way it is being said. Is it saying that we can't know what is right or wrong by looking at examples and the only way we can is by learning that it is accepted as an acceptable source of morality? I mean, aren't example the best way to learn? Why do we need something to verify that it's ok for us to learn? I think for something to be considered a moral lesson, you'd need cause and effect because with cause and effect, you learn what happens after you do something-especially if its something bad. you learn how to avoid having the same outcome again. I don't think Kant is talking about morals as in lesson learned from events. I honestly don't know WHAT he is thinking by saying this. I think everyone has their own of judging morality.

[ruksanamannan]

Ruksana Mannan

Kant states, “Act as though the maxim of your action were to become, through your will, a universal law of nature.” Right after this, he list out four instances which he has labeled as categorical imperative, so he applies the idea of universal law to each instance. The first instance is, “For love of myself, I make it my principle to cut my life short when prolonging it threatens to bring more troubles than satisfactions.” This is basically describing suicide, and that people should not commit suicide because if it were to become universal, everyone would be dead. The second in instance is, “When I think I need money, I will borrow money and promise to repay it, although I know that the repayment won’t ever happen.” This describes when people borrow money, they must pay back; if not, no one would trust each other enough to do so. The third instance is. For me the first two were very good examples, the last two were not as well thought out. The third one is people need to make themselves useful enough to utilize all human capabilities. The last is a little better; people need to care about the people around them, which are important, but not as interesting as the first two.

[jeanmalabre01]

“To be truthful (honest) in all declarations is therefore a sacred unconditional command of reason, and not to be limited by any expediency.” (Rozenkranz, p.292)

Kant, responding to some critics regarding his principle that “it is one’s duty to speak the truth,” made it clear that “the truth is a sacred unconditional command.” Sometimes we would think that it is okay to tell a small inoffensive lie, but Kant argued that what we perceive as inoffensive can have disastrous impact on others. According to Kant when you tell the truth you are protected by all the forces of the universe. We sometimes do not tell the truth in order to protect ourselves or a love one without realizing that by so doing we are endanger somebody else, or expose ourselves to greater consequences. Our human dimension limits us to guess, to lay out hypothesis for future events; our prevision of things can be totally deceiving. To make my point clearer let imagine that your partner (boyfriend/girlfriend, husband/wife) had somehow the feeling that you are seeing someone else, which is true, he/she came to confront with that, you denied it to protect yourself and not to break his/her heart, eventually the truth comes out you cannot denied it anymore. Can you think of what would happen? Don’t you think that the consequences could have been different if he/she admitted earlier?

 I totally share Kant’s idea; however, I think that telling the killer that my protégée is in the house is way extreme. Kant’s argument is base on the fact that we ought to tell the truth whatever the situation. And in this case he believes that because when you tell the truth there is a greater chance for a good outcome, so the protégée has a greater chance to come out alive because he might have the time to come out while the killer is looking for him/her inside, and if unfortunately he/her get kill you have no responsibility. On the other hand, your lie gives him/her a greater chance to be killer and you would be reliable for that this crime, because you previously lied (Rozenkranz, p.295). How would one feel if the protégée is a close relative and get killed because the truth principle is your compass?  

[Brian Low]

"a good will is good not because of what it effects or accomplishes, nor because of its fitness to attain some proposed end;it is good only through its willing I. E it is good in itself."

I have to agree with Kant on this one. Kant is basically explaining that the will to do good doesn't make it good, neither does the end result mean it's completely good either. He's saying that a good will or good deed can only be good, if it itself is good. Say for example I see a bigger on the street and decide to give him my loose change. It may seem as if it were good will on my part and the bigger may see it as a kind deed, but say I just felt like getting rid of my loose change because I hated the sound of coins jingling. Does it look like a good will? Yes. Could it be a good will? Yes and no. In this case was it a good will? No. In karts mind however it's a bit of a contradiction where he says the will itself has to be good. It can be seen from different angles and in this case the "good" will can be taken as a good accomplishment and in other cases it can be misconstrued as someone simply emptying their pockets for something else; not giving the slightest of care to the bigger.

[Beatriz Chong]

“Accordingly, the universal imperative of duty may be expressed thus: Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a universal law of nature” (998).

            This is one of Kant’s formulations of the categorical imperative. He talks about a universal law and suggests us to think about certain actions that we would do and see whether those actions could be applied universally to everybody. For example, if one person is going through a tough time, and decides to commit suicide to put an end to his or her suffering, what would the outcome be if we apply this as a law to everyone? If everybody did the same thing when they encountered problems, then there would be no humanity at all. Kant argues that if we test it and find a contradiction, then it does not work and therefore is wrong. I partially agree with Kant because it is true that we would live in a really bad world if everybody killed, robbed, and lied among other things. Basically, it would be hard for goodness or happiness to exist if people were just bound to do the wrong things automatically. But on the other hand, if we were to always to do the right things, such as helping others and caring for them, I think that would imply some sort of utopia, where everybody is good and happy. I find it unrealistic and hard to try to apply an action to every single person. For instance, in my opinion, cursing is bad. However, almost everybody curses, and we are actually living in a society where cursing is not that big of a deal anymore. Although there are consequences for cursing, I would not say they are severe.

[destinycouturee]

This is my favorite quote from the passage, and I agree that this should be a code that everyone should live their life by. Although, it is scary to think about if every action you did in life, became universal law. Such as what if you cheat on a exam or in a relationship etc.. If cheating was made universal law, than everyone would cheat, and you wouldn't know who to trust. This moral code is an excellent way to base all of your actions off of. I believe this is one of the best ways to deciphering whether your actions are right or wrong. When deciding something, it is important to think about the impact it will have on society. Additionally, consider what would come about if your action was to be made universal law. If people took this moral code into consideration, for every action they take, than perhaps their would be less crime in the world. Subsequently, their would be more people behaving in ways that are beneficial to society. 

[raquel.palmas826]

"If then there is no genuine supreme principle of morality that must rest merely on pure reason, independently of all experience, I think it is unnecessary even ask the question whether it is good to exhibit these concepts in their generality (in abstracto) which, along with the principle that belong to them, hold as they are established a priori, so far from knowledge involved is to be distinguished from ordinary knowledge and it is to be called philosophical." (pg 992)

I think this quote very clearly displays the fundamental factor guiding Kant’s ideas about ethics and that is the idea a single "genuine supreme principle of morality". This principle must rely in a governing pure will within an individual.  This quote is also in the accordance with the idea of a universal law of nature that Kant suggests logically function if it can’t then is simple wrong. Kant goes on to suggest that the knowledge does not come from experience but exist a priori within us. This should not be seen as ordinary knowledge but something more. To be honest with all of this laws and rule business Kant makes me angry because his belief is so hinged on the idea that there is a deontos or duty to behaving morally. I feel as though he doesn’t entirely account for flaws in human beings, I understand ethics is what should be but if it were a hypothetical wouldn’t want to somehow make it in someway attainable. I thinking his beliefs are too structured and don’t allow for any flexibility. He doesn’t account for the situation ally morality because he doesn’t believe that there is such a thing as an involuntary choice. You know what you have done and your intellect told you it was wrong but you chose to do what you’ve done. There are no exceptions everything is too black and white, simply right or wrong.

Raquel Palmas

[mstrose94]

Response to jeanmalabre01

I understand where you are going with the idea that one should tell the truth in all situations. Your ultimatum about the protégée being a relative is an interesting one. When i look at this situation I think about Kant's ideas of duty. In life telling the truth is a moral action but morality isn't as superficial as it is made to be. To respond to the situation a person would have to "lie" about the true location of the protégée in hopes of saving their life from the killer. This is a duty that is immoral but it is the right thing to do. Kant I believe would say that revealing the location of the protégée is the moral thing to do because the action is contrary to your initial thoughts. Kant's idea of what is truly moral doesn't seem correct but removing the real world application of it shows the potential that it carries.

[konfeta04]

“For when moral value is being considered, the concern is not with the actions, which are seen, but rather with their inner principles, which are not seen.” (Page 991)

Here Kant talks about the importance of the motive behind an action in determining whether or not an act is ethical. According to him, the motive behind the action is just as important as the action itself, and if the motive was unethical then so was the action itself. I agree that the motive is important in determining how ethical an action is, or if it is even ethical to begin with, because sometimes someone has to do the wrong thing for the right reason and vice versa. However I think that sometimes even if the motive of the action is something other than the ‘strict command of duty’ then it can still be considered ethical if it provides utility for people. It’s difficult to discern the motive behind some actions, and sometimes it’s impossible meaning that you only have the action itself to form the belief of whether or not it was ethical, which is a problem that I see with Kant’s argument.

[rachel.zoldan23]

Rachel Zoldan

 

"It always holds first place in estimating the total worth of our actions and constitute the condition of all the rest" (986)

 

Kant explained that there are four ways to act concerning duty. The first is to simply act against duty. The second is to act in accordance with duty with no immediate inclination, which means that they are compelled by some other inclination. The third is to act in accordance with duty with natural inclination, which means that they acted out of principles of honesty or natural goodness. The fourth is to act in accordance with duty contrary to immediate inclination.  This implies that they tear themselves from "deadly insensibility" and this, Kant says, has true moral worth.  It might seem that the one who is naturally inclined to fulfill their duty would have higher morality since they are intrinsically good, contrary to the later one.  This concept was very interesting to me because it reminded me of the biblical phrase " the reward is in proportion to the exertion." This means that the "reward" for fulfilling a duty is increased in proportion to the effort and discomfort one experiences.  For example, one who is naturally philanthropic is inclined to give charity. It takes them no emotionally discomforting effort to do it because it is their will. On the other hand, one who is stingy and finds it painful to hand over a dollar but does it contrary to his will gets the larger merit, in this case being moral worth.

[rachel.zoldan23]

Rachel Zoldan

 

"When there is a conflict between duty and inclination, duty should always be followed" (986)

 

Consider the situation in which a killer would ask which direction a person went in order for him to kill them.  Most people who saw which direction he went would be inclined to lie by saying the opposite direction or saying they do not know because it is morally correct to help the victim.  However, Kant is not concerned with the consequences, however moral they might be.  If lying became a universal law, then nobody would trust anybody.  I take this to mean that if there would be circumstances in which the right to lie in another person’s interest, or doing any other immoral act, was permitted, it would be a complete contradiction to moral law. Although one would be inclined to believe that absolute laws can be broken in certain circumstances, ethics are what should be the case and unless they are upheld, ethics will lose its meaning.  I agree with Kant that a person should be judged as good or bad based on his will not his actions.  The will should remain under our control.  Morality sometimes means forgoing favorable consequences in order to preserve freedom of moral will.  In my opinion, morality concerns the conduct of the individual person and is ethical because it does not conflict with individual integrity.

 

 

[gabdel7]

"Where do we get the concept of

God as the highest good from? Solely from the idea of moral

perfection that reason lays out for us a priori and which it

ties, unbreakably, to the concept of a free will."

A priori knowledge is abstract knowledge that is held independent of all experience, and therefore the opposite of empiricism, and God/Moral perfection (something that certainly nobody hs ever directly experienced) is an example of this. But how can the concept of God be completely without a foundation in human experience if it is an ideal, and an ideal, especially an unnatainable one such as this, is a reaction to what is lacking in tangible reality. Though it's true that our vision of God is constructed purely by mind and cannot be met or interacted with (at least not by the account of most), it is still something that came about due to what people have actually lived through. Without the experience of imperfection, the ideal of perfection would not be necessary or even imaginable. I guess what I'm getting at is somewhat similar to what Descartes said about the sirens and the chimera? They are not real, but they were dreamed up out of a reaction to things that are. I think Kant is attacking the ontological position Descartes held about how God must exist if we could have thought of him in the first place. How, if at all, do their views reconcile? 

[David Blinder]

Brian, I agree with your interpretation of Kant's quote however this raises a question. Kant says that a good will is not considered good because of what it effects or accomplishes and not because it aims to attain something in the end. However I feel compelled to question this because can anyone be good just for the sake of being good ? This is where religion and god come into the equation, and Kant was a believer in god. Although Kant says that a person should be moral and good because of his duty to be good (which is what religions propagate) and not because of his inclination, his desire to act from his duty is in itself a form of inclination. Therefore, being inclined to act from duty still implies that one is expecting to attain something through this process. Although a person may not be consciously aware of this, his acting from duty (although it seems selfless) is still selfish in nature because he seeks to attain something in return, usually the thing he aims to attain is to keep a "clear conscious".  

[tenzin choetso]

*In response to Rachel Zoldan*

I think Kant is saying the the concept of what is moral or immoral can't be attained from examples or instances because we won't know if that particular examples or instances is a fit example of morality, unless the instances or the examples have actually occurred and have already been deemed to fit the principles of morality. I think Kant literally mean examples where as you misinterpreted examples with experience. Examples are fictitious so we won't know what someone will do until that example converts to reality. Since experience are real, we might actually learn from it. Much like the term "it's easier said then done."

[simondfchan]

“If we now attend to ourselves in any transgression of a duty, we will find that we actually do not will that our maxim should become a universal law because this is impossible for us but rather that the opposite of this maxim should remain a law universally” p.973

Kant states ”that when you tell a lie, you do so on the condition that others are truthful and believe that what your are saying is true, because otherwise your lie will never work to get what you want.” Is Kant telling everyone should be honest to each other? Is the truth really that important? In this case, what if the doctor has this patient who has cancer. He just found out that the patient might not last very long. However, the doctor doesn't want the patient to give up so easily. Should he still tell him the truth? What If the doctor told him the truth, then patient jump off the window after their conversation? In addition, the patient would've lost his hope in his life because he knew he was going to die. This is confusing. According to Kant, consequence doesn't make good will good. He believes it takes a reason to find the duty and a good will to finish it. Maxim gets rid of our outcome desires and helps us to build good will.