Subjects:
Categorical Imperative as a method for determining morality of
actions. This formula is a two part test. First, one creates a maxim
and considers whether the maxim could be a universal law for all
rational beings. Second, one determines whether rational beings would
will it to be a universal law. Once it is clear that the maxim passes
both prongs of the test, there are no exceptions. As a paramedic faced
with a distraught widow who asks whether her late husband suffered in
his accidental death, you must decide which maxim to create and based
on the test which action to perform. The maxim "when answering a
widow's inquiry as to the nature and duration of her late husbands
death, one should always tell the truth regarding the nature of her
late husband's death" (M1) passes both parts of the Universal Law
Formation of the Categorical Imperative. Consequently, according to
Kant, M1 is a moral action. The initial stage of the Universal Law
Formation of the Categorical Imperative requires that a maxim be
universally applicable to all rational beings. M1 succeeds in passing
the first stage. We can easily imagine a world in which par
. . .
and perhaps in this situation it would be easier to lie to the widow,
but it would still be an immoral action that I would not want everyone
to do. The
suicide is, however, a consequence of your initial action. Telling a lie to the widow would increase her happiness
and consequently would, at least possibly, be a moral action. It resonates with my
moral sensibilities to consider that actions are moral or immoral
regardless of their immediate consequences. One must
ask if rational beings would really will such a world in which there
would be many, many specific, but universal, laws. The morality of
telling the lie is on a case by case basis. In order to answer
this question, one must use the rational "I" for the statement "I, as
a rational being would will such a world," not the specific, embodied
"I" which represents you in your present condition. If it is narrow enough so that it
encompasses only a few people, then it passes the first test. Consequently you many not want to
will your maxim to be a universal law. In some situations, it
might be better to tell the truth, and according to utilitarianism
that would then be the moral action. For
example, the maxim could read, "When facing a distraught widow whose
late husband has driven off a bridge at night, and he struggled to get
out of the car but ended up drowning, and he was wearing a brown suit
and brown loafers, then you should tell the widow that he died
instantly in order to spare her feelings. What if
telling the truth brings the widow to the point where she commits
suicide, however? Is telling her the truth then a moral action
although its consequence is this terrible response? If telling the
widow the truth drives her to commit suicide, it seems like no
rational being would will the maxim to become a universal law.
Although utilitarianism often offers the easier solution to
perform because it produces immediate gratification and allows many
exceptions to common sense moral codes, the answers it gives are
unfilling and unrealistic. In fact,
utilitarianism considers happiness to be the only intrinsically
valuable end.
Essay's Topics
All research is for reference purposes only.