Note the following two extremes:
1) Hitler had about 6 million Jewish people killed because he wanted to "purify" the race. What Hitler did to the Jewish people in the 40's is considered "universally" as an "immoral" action. I think everyone can agree that any attempt to exterminate a race of people is "always" wrong.
2) In the 60's many young men had hair that was very long. Some people felt that this was "immoral".
-----------------------------------------------------------
Questions: Are some things/actions universally immoral or moral? How many of these things/actions are there, if there are?
I would challenge you to try answering this philosophically "advanced" by connecting to the readings about Kant, and by implementing "maxims" "imperatives" and the conflict between "moral actions" and "prudent actions"...............
Yes, indeed some actions are universally immoral and moral. There are many in depth ways to answer the question of how many. In my mind, only a few ideas or actions are absolutely pure or unjust. Murder and hatred seem to exist as popular "immoral actions," while helping the poor and elderly seem to be predetermined and seen as completely moral and justified.
ReplyDeleteSometimes, we do what is "right" just to seek some type of self-gradification. Some may help the poor or elderly, but they only do so to put on a show for others. According to the readings, this seems to indicate they are moral, yet someone that just does these actions for the benefit or others is completely blank, or lacking of advanced morality just because they ALREADY do the right thing. My own personal stance: True morality comes from those that are natural. If someone where truly a moral individual, he or she could have made the choice to render oneself as a pure and modest person early on to create such habits and promote prosperity outside of individual means.
As a believer in Kant, I also think actions are universally moral or immoral. I believe every action made by every person has a connection back to one of the absolutes. Most of the time these absolutes appear to be extremes, only applying to large and excessive situations such as the example of Hitler attempting to exterminate a race. These examples, however, should and can be used to solve simpler problems. Every action is connected to an absolute, therefore, every single action can be said to be universally moral or immoral. Of course different actions/situations can be complicated and even argued that complexity distorts the absolute connection, but I believe any sort of complexity can be reduced or ignored so every problem relates to the simple maxims and imperatives of the world.
ReplyDeleteBoth of your comments are pretty much what Kant says. Zack, Ayn Rand would say that your example of acting altruistic for "show" is exactly why its wrong, because the action is done more for you than for the person. I have never really took that stance, and I would say that any good act is generally better than any bad act, regardless of the motive (if we actually know the difference between a "good" act and a "bad" act.
ReplyDeleteMy problem with this is that it appears to me that there are some so-called "moral decisions" that I think might actually not be connected to any particular maxim - and I think that these are all in the realm of utility, or practical morality. Say for example, hunting bag limits in 2012, or the use of a particular fertilizer or a particular product. Like I am thinking that when a family was living in 1912, it was practical to kill all the wild animals you could, and then freeze them (outside), or cure them to eat later. Since you might not have another opportunity, it might be immoral not to -especially if it were for survival rather than sport. I can see a time when it might have been practical and therefore "moral" to use DDT on crops (before anyone knew it was harmful) or asbestos in buildings, if you get my point.
So what I am grappling with, is how can all practical actions "of the time" actually be exactly connected to any universal maxim of truth. I suppose that one way to argue that it is connected to a universal maxim would be to say that a maxim can only be controlled by the information that we have at the time. However, that in itself, seems to make the entire situation have a "hint" of moral relativity.