LSSC Kantian Ethics Beyond Rationality Discussion

1. RESPOND to at least two of your peers’ posts, showing evidence of having watched/read their initial.

Post # 1

Barry Martina

Option B:

According to Kant, what is the source of human rights? What does his account imply about the rights of animals, infants, and severely disabled humans? Do you find his views on this subject plausible? Why or why not?

According to German philosopher Immanuel Kant, the source of human rights is the possession of both autonomy and rationality. What this means is that we, as humans, are able to reason and as a result make choices about how to live our lives in a worthwhile manner. Kant found these to be the foundation of our existence as rational and even moral beings. The way we act is completely determined by our own reasoning and resulting preferences, causing us to be held accountable for this autonomy. Essentially this is what guides us to create our maxims, whether universalizable or not. Universalizability is what ultimately determines whether we are deserving of commendation or fault. Kant felt that these traits were very specifically human and cemented our basic human rights.

Kant’s view of non-human animals, infants, and severely disabled humans were not held in the same moral regard. The reason for this is that they are not considered either rational or autonomous. The example used in our text refers to both hawks and sharks pursuing and killing their prey for food (Shafer-Landau, 179). This is not considered bad behavior or immoral because their motivation is simply survival on a very primal, instinctual level. He did not see this as an autonomous way of existing but rather as a necessity controlling their actions. Similarly, infants and severely (mentally) disabled humans lack the same rationality of most developed humans with a certain level of life experience. Infants are simply not yet developed psychologically and are incapable of being autonomous or rational. Severely disabled humans are impaired to such an extent that they too lack autonomy and rationality. Therefore, by Kant’s reasoning, non-human animals, infants, mentally disabled humans, and any form of vegetation are not to be considered in the same moral spectrum. Better yet, they are not to be morally considered at all.

This becomes very problematic when you break it all down. As our author discusses, does this then make it acceptable to harm other animals, infants, and disabled people with no moral consequence? Since they are neither autonomous nor rational, they are not entitled to the same rights or morality afforded to us rational, autonomous humans (Shafer-Landau, 190). Yet apparently Kant was against harming animals (and perhaps others existing outside our moral realm). His reasoning behind this sentiment was that causing this type of harm would eventually lead people to conclude it’s acceptable to harm other (rational) humans. Kant’s theory implicitly states that it is not the outcome that determines one’s morality, as in consequentialism, but rather the rational motivation and its universalizability. So, in my opinion, he starts to contradict himself through this observation. Although Kantian views on morality are certainly worthy of merit, once again the substance does not fully support the validity. This results in my rejection of Kant’s perspective as completely plausible. Indeed, although also flawed, this seems to lend more credibility to consequentialism and specifically act utilitarianism. Not only did Kant’s moral views reflect considerable flaws, but they also seem rigid and cold in their perception of the many facets of humanity. There is little to no room for emotion in Kant’s views of morality and the duties that we must adhere to in order to support them. That alone takes much of what makes us exceptional as humans away.

Post # 2

Nicole Martell

Option A:

What is a maxim, and what does it mean for a maxim to be universalizable? Provide an example to an ethical situation to illustrate how this would work in application. How does this differ from the golden rule and the what if everyone did that? test? Why does the principle of universalizability fail to be a good test of the morality of our actions?

A maxim is defined as a principle of action given to oneself before they are about to do something. There are two parts to a maxim, it involves a clear declaration of what you are about to do, as well as your justification for doing said thing. A maxim is unique to oneself and two people performing the same action that yields the same results could have two completely different maxims. For a maxim to be universalizable means that it must be equally applicable to every identical situation, or in other words, you cannot make yourself an exception. There’s a three-step test to determine whether or not a maxim is universalizable, the last part is a question that asks, “Can the goal of my action be achieved in such a world?” If the answer is yes then that action is morally sound, and if the answer is no, that action is morally flawed. The goal of your action being plausible in the real world helps to show that you’re being fair and consistent, rather than if you’d be better off by making that decision. When you have a maxim that is universalizable, then we arrive at the standard of the principle of universalizability, which states that an act is morally acceptable if, and only if, its maxim is universalizable. Don’t kill people is generally a principle of universalizablity that most of the world agrees with; Everyone could stand behind this idea because if we killed everyone then there would be no human race. Suppose, however, you’re being attacked. While trying to get away from your assailant, you push and kick and end up knocking them into the street, killing them. While we know to not kill people, and you are now directly responsible for the death of your attacker, would this fall under immoral due to the principle of universalizability? It would be considered morally sound because your maxim was not to kill the person. You acted in a way that again, everyone could stand behind. If everyone fought back and killed their murderer before they themselves were killed, there would still be the same balance of life and death in the universe; Not everyone would die and the world would not turn to shambles, at least not from what I can think of. The golden rule states, simply that, we should treat others the way we want to be treated. The principle of universalizability differs from this as it focuses on the consequences of others first and the golden rule focuses on the potential consequences to oneself first. The ‘what if everyone did that’ as the name suggests, tests if an action would be practical if everyone did it. The principle of universalizability focuses less on whether a world where everyone did a certain action would be disastrous, and more on whether it would be fair if everyone did that. The principle of universalizability fails to be a good test of our moral actions because, as stated earlier, two identical actions that yield the same results may be motivated by different maxims that cause one to be moral and one to be immoral, despite identical circumstances. Say you stay with your partner because you really love them, versus staying with them because you’re afraid of confrontation and breakups. If everyone did the second option, people may reject this way of thinking, making it not universalizable, and therefore immoral. If you are doing the first, despite living the same life with the same happy partner, your action is moral. How can the same actions yielding the same results have differences in morality?