Two Main Types of Morality - Case Study Example

Are reason and emotion equally important in justifying moral decisions? Moral decisions are a complex that require a mixture of reason/emotion in making them. There are two main types of morality. The first is an absolute type of ethics in which some acts are absolutely wrong, all of the time. This ethical system is often based upon rationality. The other type of morality is relative one in which the ends of an action are considered, and an action may be morally ‘wrong’ in one situation and ‘right’ in another. This is the consequentialist type of point of view, and often based upon emotion. Take a situation in which a person is offered two particular choices. The scenario is a situation in which a person offers another a way of stealing money from a bank by taking 0.01 cents off every bank transaction over the course of a year. The action is that the other person agrees to the scheme, saying that it will allow his family to live well for generations while no-one within the bank or its customers will even notice that the money has gone. The categorical imperative theory states, simply, that a person should “act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (Kant, 1985). In this case, the categorical imperative would be that stealing money is always wrong – the person should not consider either the fact that no-one is seemingly harmed by the actions nor the good that it will bring to the family. Kant was in fact highly critical of using examples as a form of moral measure, as they tended to use what he called “moral intuitions”, which today would be regarded more commonly as “feelings” or emotion rather than rational thought. Kant believed that rational thought was the route to the truth within human affairs. There is a universal truth in the idea that stealing is always wrong, there is no logical universal law within the idea that stealing is sometimes wrong and sometimes right. Kant sought absolutes, and so the situation outlined above, however harmless it might seem, could not be supported. Kant was in fact highly critical of using examples as a form of moral measure, as they tended to use what he called “moral intuitions”, which today would be regarded more commonly as “feelings” rather than rational thought. Kant believed that rational thought was the route to the truth within human affairs. There is a universal truth in the idea that stealing is always wrong, there is no logical universal law within the idea that stealing is sometimes wrong and sometimes right. Kant sought absolutes, and so the situation outlined above, however harmless it might seem, could not be supported. In his Fundamental Principles of Metaphysics of Morals the subjects of good will, duty, inclination and reason are discussed. He also explored the idea of ‘humanity’ as an end and rather than a means. In many ways his philosophy of morality can be seen as an optimistic one, although at the same time it demanded quite a lot of people through its doctrine of the “categorical imperative” (Kant, 1998). The categorical imperative is a single moral obligation that stems from a concept of duty. It is from this imperative that all other moral obligations are derived. The imperative should be founded only upon those things that reason can tell us, rather than experience or inclination. Thus the nature of the categorical imperative and the moral duties that it imposes could, in theory, be constituted merely from thinking about it. Kant argued that moral law is in fact a variable of reason, rather than being based upon facts. This moral law has no other end in sight other than the “worthiness of being happy” (Kant, 1998). The “good will” is present within this worthiness of being happy, and it should follow what Kant called the “universability test” (Kant, 1998). This test can be found within any particular maxim, such as, “I will steal the money in order to be happy”. The action in this case is stealing and the motivation is happiness. The maxim is then fed into a five step universability test in which everyone living is said to follow the maxim, and then the results are logically considered. The important point is whether irrationality or contradiction occurs, if it does then the maxim does not meet the test and should be discarded. If no contradiction/irrationality occurs then acting on the basis of the maxim is permissible and may even by obliged within certain circumstances. Another important aspect that is touched upon within this book is the idea of ‘humanity’ being an end in itself rather than a means to an end. By humanity he implied the “rational being” which is an absolute rather than a relative matter. The relative and arbitrary ends that often go with maxims that do not follow the categorical imperative should be rejected for this rational being that is “the basis for all maxims of action”. Kant goes further, suggesting that it “must be treated never as a mere means but as the supreme limiting condition in the use of all means, i.e. as an end at the same time” (Kant, 1998). Humanity thus lies within the province of being an end in itself because it is the ultimate end – it covers all rightful means and ends. Returning to the case that has been postulated, the harm would come to both the people stealing the money because they had essentially produced a relativistic world in which the only logical imperative would be that stealing is always all right, because it is within this situation. Within this world there would be a kind of survival of the fittest – the possessions that our two criminals would gain through the bank scheme would not be safe from being stolen itself. They might gain much in the short term but would most certainly lose in the long run. Thus respect for persons, in the form of respect both for their own sense of virtue, as well as for the wider society, would imply that the action was wrong. In this particular case no-one might be harmed, but the imperative that would be implied would lead to situations in which many more people would be harmed. This is the reason that Kant allowed no exceptions to the categorical imperatives – the exceptions would lead to a relativistic world in which no absolutes existed. The bank scheme might seem harmless to most people, but according to the categorical imperative that it is wrong to steal it would be wrong. It is absolute rules rather than individual exceptions that are most important to Kant, and thus the stealing would be roundly condemned according to his philosophy. One of the problems with the absolute type of morality, and one that is often exploited by those with a consequentialist viewpoint, is that it often leads to apparently absurd situations. However, the concept that all morality should be based upon a relative system in which the ends justify the means is also a difficult one to fully support. One of the major problems with it is that if there are no absolute standards against which the relative ones can be measured, then every human being has a right to create their own “morality” according to the situation. The fact is that countries tend to run themselves according to laws which, as Winston Churchill suggested of democracy, may be the worst form of government except for all the others. If consequnetialism is to be the standard for morality then laws would not exist and soon anarchy would occur (Shafer-Landa, 2007). Ironically, within the consequentialist system the supposed ‘freedom’ to do anything that can be justified by its ends would soon lead to far less freedom for most people. Within a world of purely relative morality it is the strong, the ruthless and the amoral who tend to dictate their own standards upon the majority. This has been shown time and again within wars and other times of great human crisis: when there is absolute freedom in fact there is no freedom. On the other hand, if absolute systems of morality are the only ones that are regarded as valid (as within Kant’s vision) then a curtailment of freedom will also occur. In conclusion, it seems as if a balance between the absolute (reason-based) and the relative (emotion-based) type of morality needs to be found within a society. Indeed, within most societies that work it is the achievement of this balance that has led to success. Thus most people obey the law most of the time, yet most can also see that certain actions that would normally be regarded as immoral or unethical may be acceptable under exceptional circumstances. The tendency to want an overarching theory of morality:- whether absolute or relative in nature – tends to lead to a lessening of freedom and a worsening of the conditions that people live under. Within mature cultures individuals are left to make their own moral decisions as much as possible, as long as they do not harm others. Whether they base those decisions upon an absolute or relative type of morality is a matter, and should be a matter, between themselves and the universe, or their maker if they believe in one. __________________________________ Works Cited Kant, Immanuel. Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals. Hackett Publishing, New York: 1985. ----------------------.Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 1998. Pojman, Louis. Moral Philosophy: A Reader. Hackett Publishing, New York: 2003. Shafer-Landau, Russ. Ethical Theory. Blackwell, New York: 2007. Read More