The case against hurting others - Essay Example

The case against hurting others Since man has met civilization, his behavior has been anything but that. Throughout the years of evolution, man has maintained and generated newer ways of making his fellow beings uncomfortable. Though this is not always done as a deliberate element, yet its effects are far-reaching, and ever-present due to the dynamic state of the human being around the globe. To add, the varying theologies and schools of thoughts that people have, accord for the varying perceptions that people have about the real world. The same issue of hurting others will be tackled in this essay, through the eyes of philosophers Thomas Nagel and Immanuel Kant. On the context of hurting others, Nagel presents a moralistically sensitive stance. He believes that the best way to understand what the other person is feeling is to actualize with the feelings of the other person. Hurting another person in itself is a subjective concept, according to Nagel. Just like the concept of good or bad, or morality or even laws, the issues of transgressing the rights of another person is a matter which may not affect many if they cannot relate to it. Many people do not even tend to realize even after they have undergone the process of making someone feel unconformable. Au contraire, Kant feels that the absolute truth lies only in the good will of a person. All else is surreal, and the only true and unconditional good act is the one which is done out of true intrinsic will by a person. The focus is on the concept of “How would you like it if someone did that to you?” (Nagel, 1987. p. 64). The point emphasized by Nagel here is that a person should endeavor to step into the shoes of the other individual. Then the perspective of reality would become evident, and perhaps, the action could be avoided. He further argues that people fail to appreciate the viewpoint of the other person because their own orientation about the facts is not only specific, due to being a different person altogether1. Kant on the other hand, almost refers to the doing of these acts as an act of duty, wherein a person would be internally compelled to undergo a task. He feels that it is important to take heed of situation as a consequence of one’s internal drive, instead somebody from the outer world forcing an action. Nagel also tends to believes that the concept of majority is a more generalized concept, and cannot be left at the whims of individuals. Universal good, though is not clearly defined, yet it exists as unison. It is only for a person to explore the same in appropriate conditions and circumstances, whereby the true inner persona of the individual will come out. In the context of hurting others, this is a very important stance, the fact remains, that of there is a concept of universal good, then a person should not harm others in the first instance. Therefore, he should make that realization earlier in, and should begin to establish the norms that would help him live appropriately in the world. The reality is that the integrity of the will is imperishable. In the perspective, the meaning can be inferred in the same line. The will alone can have no integrity – it has to be linked with man himself, as per Kant. Therefore, again extrapolating the fact that the mind is sure to dominate the proceedings of life, despite what course of actions are to be taken, the case against hurting people becomes clear. The soul as an entity can never destroy, as it is the true emblem of existence for man – his distinguishing factor. These factors give an intrinsic line of reasoning for the person who is about to or intends to harm somebody. When the established pattern of thought is already present, then the person will automatically restrain himself from doing the superfluous. The concept of uniformity of behavior and thought has always triggered the minds of people who want to dwell into the science of what humans may do in a particular scenario. However, it is interesting that both of these present a similar stance on the said subject. Nagel is of the opinion that it is naturally plausible for anybody to maintain an existing thread of ideas and/or actions. Preservation of one’s being, therefore, in lieu of something else is not an instinctual yearning that man can or should go ahead with. Further, it is rationalistically not feasible as well that the same should be accomplished. Similarly, Kant puts forward the notion that consistency can not be correlated with a being. The factor of change is not only necessary, but it is mandatory; nonetheless, the internal will and concept of good does not change. Thus, with the dynamics that the human beings portray, consistency is not only incompatible, but impossible. “A human being, however is not a thing and hence not something that can be merely used as a means, but must in all his actions must be regarded as an end in itself” (Kant, 1998. p. 38). The journey of every soul’s towards its destiny is considered to be embedded within the concept of not staying conserved; and in not maintaining the status quo. Only in regular amendments, adjustments and constant evolution is the key to the supremacy and existence of human beings, which will allow a person to better understand what the environment is all about2. On the significant role played by nature in the behavior of man, both these theories interject. Though nature has been a sort of subjective reality for the sake of many philosophers, yet these two have come to the same conclusion. Hurting someone is like transgressing one’s limits, and both Nagel and Kant are of the opinion that this is inherently contradictory to human nature. The role of human nature can never be undermined. What has been naturally created in the form of intrinsic good can never be put away from its core. Nature is as close to man as man himself, because he is essentially a product of the former. The same concepts are reiterated by them in different shades, and they try to establish the fact, that people only need to dog in deep into what they actually stand for. Whenever a person gets to understand his true self, then he automatically would learn to learn the domain of action while dealing with others. It is simply not possible that a person would go to the extent of conflicting with his own existence. This goes on to the same fact that man is driven by his internal good, and hence cannot and does not remain an adversary to the same. Violation of the nature would in turn mean getting in disagreement with oneself, which is theoretically and pragmatically not feasible. One can only do and perform as much as the limits of self deem appropriate. Works Cited Kant, I. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. (1998). Cambridge University Press. Nagel, T. What does it all mean? (1987). Oxford University Press. Read More