Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? #6

Today we backtrack to an argument made in a previous episode, episode 2, for utilitarianism and explore another well-known philosopher’s take on the concept of ‘the greatest utility for the greatest number’ by Jeremy Bentham. I was first briefly introduced to Immanuel Kant (whom we’ll be talking about today) in my religious studies class and so this lecture was incredibly fascinating, especially knowing what I had known, the in-depth lecture gives me a new insight and I look forward to sharing that with you all.

Kant’s message

Immanuel Kant was an 18th century philosopher who is known for Kant’s Categorical Imperatives (more on this later) and his name, Kant. When he first came across utilitarianism, he rejected it, instead, he says it’s more about the dignity of an individual. To him, we are people fully capable of reasoning what’s right or wrong and deciding to act upon that, therefore in no way should we be obliged to desires like hunger, because that would be the opposite of freedom (Heteronomy)! His principle was simple: To act ‘freely’, you must act according to the laws you give yourself (Autonomy).

This interlinks with Kant’s belief on people because it’s due to the dignity of those who are able to act rationally, should they be special and separate from non-livings. The most crucial message I took away from my RS class on Kant was the idea of treating people as the means to an end, not the mean to an end, this would seemingly suggest that Kant was a deontologist as it clearly distinguishes what is right and wrong, and in Kant’s eyes, what is treating people as the means to an end. To someone who lean towards consequentialist beliefs, Kant’s argument is incoherent as it does not consider more complex scenarios in real life, such as those where it’s the people you know that lifts you up and help you achieve something. Does this mean I am taking advantage of that person and seeing them as a mean for me to reach a goal? I wouldn’t say so. It’s a symbiotic relationship if you ask me. Sure, it is absolutely possible to take advantage of those situations, but I could argue that by over-considering the actions that is considering to treat people as a mean to an end would result in overthinking and a constant mental battle with yourself. It’s important to have moral principles, but rules were meant to be broken ;D

Motive?

Another interesting point to bring up is what Kant thinks dictates the moral worth of an action. Why is this considered to be so significant? Why is that… Not? He believes the moral worth of an action depends on the motive, doing the right thing for the right reason for the duty of humans, which is in direct comparison to inclinations, which Kant refers to as our wants and desires. Kant acknowledges that whatever incentives lead to the action, it can never be a self-interested one. Professor Sandel gave the example of the shopkeeper, who faces the opportunity of short-changing a customer, but they don’t do so in consideration of their reputation and the fear of losing business. Is this morally correct? Does it have moral worth? To me, this is difficult because in the standpoint of a consequentialist, the end is always what matters and so technically it is morally permissible. However, to look at it from Kant’s perspective, who most likely will argue that if the shopkeeper’s reputation was guaranteed to be secure, they would have short-changed the inexperienced customer, hence the shopkeeper’s action would not have moral worth as it is considering to do the right thing for the wrong reason.

A student in the hall asks Professor Sandals a few questions of clarification and I thought it was spot on, what stops morality from being completely subjective, if I am acting autonomously? What guarantees that my moral law is the same as your moral law, and we’re both acting accordingly to our own laws? I wouldn’t have thought about this, but this makes complete sense because Kant wants us to act autonomously but also out of duty and do the right thing, isn’t this a bit conflicting? Deontologists may argue that no, because there are actions like murder that should be unanimously agreed to be categorically wrong (just use common sense!) while other people like consequentialists may argue that it depends, like in a situation of committing murder for self-defence, would that be morally permissible? Alternatively, Kant believes that the thing that differs human beings from others, is the ability to reason and think rationally, therefore we are capable of acting autonomously but exercise with reason, the reason that everyone shares. Unfortunately, I think with the society has evolved and endless factors affecting everyone’s way of life, everyone thinking and acting on the same moral laws is impossible (stealing is wrong but people still steal, big or small).

I have been extremely caught up with school as assessments rush to finish that I’ve not been able to sit down and recap on the justice course, to say I’ve missed voicing my opinions on the internet is a slight understatement, but I hope to get back on the weekly blogs. Some time soon I hope to switch up the content of my blogs more because I wouldn’t want to have serious discussions about morality every week, maybe something related to Christmas? Possibly travelling? Time will tell, but please let me know what would interest you in the comments!

Thanks for reading, and see you all in a bit.

-Winnie 13/11/2022