I could use the help.

Hello everyone please read this philosophy paper and add your critques, it is a revised rough draft and I plan to make one more revision. Your comments would be greatly appreciated. P.S. The christian allusions are meant to be there.

Joshua McClain

Instructor Courtney Morris

Philosophy 101

Ethics Paper (12/19/06)

My Views on Ethics

Ethics. A scary and huge topic to overcome, I would think, for one person to come up with a way in which they should live their lives. In trying to understand this word, ethics, and everything that is stapled onto that idea many people have had great emotional highs and lows. Whether you believe in the idea of free will or not, we as members of the human race have to decide how we are going to live our life. We have the control over ourselves when it comes to life and death, so therefore we must be clairvoyant enough to control the way in which we live our lives, if we choose to continue living. The question and journey set before us now is how do we as humans, begin to come up with a way to run our lives. Even further, how can we come up with a way to help other people run their lives; a way that crosses all boundaries of science, upbringing, societal status, and geographical boundaries while still being universal in its impact?

When you set-out on a life changing journey of thought and discussion it is wise to define your terms that you will be using so frequently in following statements. Ethics would be defined as a system of rules that a person chooses to live their life by. This also correlates to Morals, which are ideas of right and wrong, evil and good. Think of Morality as a tree, morals deal with good and evil. If you believe in moral good then your branches will be ethically in line with your moral beliefs. Then, if you believe in moral evil, you branches will be ethically in line with that belief. Simply put, if you want to be good (moral worth) then your actions (ethical beliefs) will reflect your moral choice. There have been many theories as how you should even go about thinking about ethics. They are Psychological egoism, where there is no such thing as an unselfish act and that our ethics are determined based on our selfishness. Ethical relativism where everyone is right and no one can be wrong. The other thought structures for ethics is Kantianism or Deontological ethics; where we should filter everything we do through a categorical imperative, which will leave us with a universal truth that everyone should follow. The other Utilitarianism or Teleological ethics that believe we have purpose, and we are not acting on principles, but on consequences that determine our actions.

I will argue that Immanuel Kant is the closest to being correct, of the other options, for understanding ethics when he said we should “Act only according to the maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” Kant’s previously stated categorical imperative is I believe the easiest way to understand the ethical dilemma. Again I state how should we then live our lives? First we need to come to a conclusion that there is good and evil. The overwhelming majority of people would say that evil things happen to people. In that same breath they would also say that good things happen to people. The idea of good and evil has been around since the beginning of mankind. There has always been a concept of people being aware of their own self, whether they are being happy or being sad. This happy/sad, good/evil concept equally correlates to a right and a wrong ideology. Kant said that one thing can be certain “that all people want an end in happiness” stated towards a Kingdom of Ends in his third formulation, so what about unhappiness, again happy/sad idea. There is a right and there is a wrong, but who decides what right and what wrong is. Does one person decide this, do many smart people decide this, or should everyone decide this? Kant would say that we should put any action through the categorical imperative and see if it benefits ALL of mankind, if it does then it is right, and if it does not then it is wrong. Kant was very clear in his discussion of the categorical imperative and he made up three formulations that would help guide us in the decision making process of the categorical imperative. The first formulation that Kant uses in his work Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals was the actual definition to the categorical imperative; "Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law." This is the basis for a human being to figure out how to live his life. The next two formulations are set as guidelines when we test the imperative and come up with certain answers. The answers must do these two things. The first guideline is to "Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end." This simply means that when you come up with a categorical imperative it should never take away the importance of the individual and we should never use people as just a means to an end, but think of their unique life as well as all others. The second guideline, and third formulation, is to "act as though you were through your maxims a law-making member of a kingdom of ends." This guideline works towards harmonizing the human race and making it so everyone can, in essence be happy. Making a maxim that would harm a certain people group or alienate someone is not a happy “kingdom of ends” that we should strive for.

Using these models of the categorical imperative you could take all of society’s rules and personal rules and run it through this model. Then you could decide if these rules where justified by being there. Most everyone is aware of the Ten Commandments given by God in the book of Exodus. These rules, ethics to hold onto are interesting fodder for the categorical imperative. Try to put each and everyone one of the commandments through and you will realize that yes these are all good things to do; they are right for everyone to follow in society. These maxims that have come out of the other end of the categorical imperative all have positive and, morally dutiful, kingdom of ends aspects to help people in their lives. If the desired outcome is for people to live in harmony, with their moral decisions, in the end then these maxims work and they bring happiness. If the categorical imperative can bring moral goodness and inevitable happiness to everyone, wouldn’t they agree with this system of deciding what is right and what is wrong?

There are conflicting conclusions with how people interpret the kingdom of ends, and how we might get to that point in humanity without upsetting and excluding some people in the beginning, this is the only area that the categorical imperative is somewhat silent on. The categorical imperative does offer some clues as how we should get to that point. Kant discusses that idea of duty in his work on the categorical imperative. Duty as Kant put it “is the necessity to act out of reverence for the law set by the categorical imperative.” This means that we, people who follow the categorical imperative, have an obligation to follow the results of a perfect categorical imperative. Duty is what allows us to never exclude people or upset humanity. Duty is axiomatically dependent on how the categorical imperative may work. Duty assumes that people, wanting a Kingdom of ends society, will be responsible and work through their feelings of selfishness in order to act in a moral way. In the end the categorical imperative will bring happiness, so people must be dutiful in working towards that goal, and that means following the moral set forth by the imperative. Some would say in rebuttal to this, that Kant seemed very socialistic and wanted to create a Utopian society here on earth. The answer to this is “Yeah, and why not”. Being realistic and not naïve, we will realize that not everyone will act in accordance to the categorical imperative. However this should not discourage those people who have found the answer in the categorical imperative, they must tell others about the imperative and grow in numbers and hope for the best.

Now that the categorical imperative has been firmly established in your mind, let us continue to uncover ways in which other people have tried to undermine this imperative. Moral relativism; what is good for you, is good for you, and what is good for me, is good for me, and if you don’t like it then you can go and die. Moral relativists have a saying that “everyone is right and no one can be wrong.” This also follows that ethics and morals are culture specific, what is good for one culture may not be good for another culture. Stop for a moment and run this idea through the categorical imperative. It almost short-circuits; there is so much room for error. How can one thing be right and then be wrong in another circumstance. If someone really takes the time to step back and follow this line of thought through to the end, it results in complete chaos. Evil would be rampant, while some would call it good. Good would be rampant, and some would call it evil. Here they have not defined what good and evil is. They have recognized it, but have not given these two different words, two different meanings. They have given these two words the same meaning. This can not be considered an answer to the question of ethics until it can be agreed upon by everyone. Leaving people and cultures out of the picture is not feasible, and is irresponsible. It would not be rude to ask a moral relativist why they have no responsibility for themselves and for the human race. Encourage them to seek out their beliefs end, not just the here and now, but the ends of their thought process. Moral relativists have not done this therefore they continue believing what they want to believe.

Utilitarianism is the belief that we should maximize intrinsic good and minimize intrinsic evil in all circumstances. Paraphrased, we should do the option that would have the best (most happiness) outcome for the majority of people, even if some people get lost and are hurt in the process. It could also be said “just do more good than bad and in the end it will work out for the good.” It is an “ends justifies the means ideology” and this idea forgets the importance of the individual. Put through the categorical imperative this theory would most certainly be discarded. People are unique and have worth. To say that a person is just a means to an end is something that goes against everything in the categorical imperative’s guidelines. The utilitarian has assumed that there is good and evil, which is a move in the right direction, however deciding whether something is right or wrong based on the overall outcome, is an audacious concept. Who decided who lives and who dies, when it comes down to decision making time? Are they going to live with that, knowing that some people where left behind and they could have compromised a way for some people to have a voice. If you follow this logic through to its end, you will find a group of people who have no regard for the rest of humankind. On a personal level, you will have a person who is unsatisfied knowing that they just did more good than bad to get to a happy medium. The categorical imperative realizes this and leaves an option for people to only do good, and only do bad. There is no gray area. It is either right or wrong. Living in the gray areas of life lead to dissatisfaction and continued questioning of our belief system. If you set a maxim, and it passes the categorical imperative, it is good and moral, and will inevitably lead to happiness.

The idea has been thrown around in this essay that living in accordance to the moral objectives set forth in the categorical imperative, will inevitably lead to happiness. Will it? Let us be good stewards of thought and test it. Kant said that lying “is impermissible in any and all conceivable circumstances.” Kant said this because were lying allowed then there would be no room for a Kingdom of ends. Lying he said would leave us with suspicion at every corner and would take away the value of a person. This is a very controversial aspect surrounding Kant and his theories. I however find nothing controversial in this statement at all. Remember back to the discussion of the Ten Commandments, the ninth commandment is to never lie. I stated then, that the Ten Commandments were perfect results of the categorical imperative. Here is a situation brought to my attention; Bang! Bang! Bang! You rush to your door and open it, when you see that your very best friend is gasping for air, from running, and wants to come into your house. They tell you that they are being chased by someone wishing to kill them, and they ran to your house knowing that you would provide shelter and try to protect them. Your friend then asks you to tell the murderer that you have not seen them today, and then the murderer would go on their way; a lie in its most basic form. Some would call it a ‘white’ lie. This is a perfect example of the categorical imperative in action. Would you lie and break the codes of the categorical imperative, or tell the murderer that you have the person that they are looking for. The objectors of the categorical imperative, who ask this question, have never added a third option to this list; Say Nothing. Saying nothing to this murderer is a perfectly and morally acceptable answer to this murderer. You do not even have to open the door to the murderer. However let us say that you did, and the murderer asks you where your friend is. You have no moral responsibility to answer this murderer. Be silent and your friend, who is well hidden, will live. Also, as soon as your friend comes to the door in the manner they did, call the authorities, lock your door, get your gun from the closet and wait for the police to show up. Saying nothing to this murderer is perfectly acceptable under the categorical imperative. Then once the murderer is under police custody, try to tell them about the categorical imperative and maybe their life would be better if they lived a morally acceptable life, maybe they would not be going to prison for attempted homicide charges. The categorical imperative is a way in which you can live a morally perfect life. I must interject here that although the imperative is set up to bring out perfect actions. We must always remember that humans are imperfect beings, trying to work towards perfection. The kingdom of ends, as described by Kant will never be accomplished here on earth. The idea of a kingdom of ends however will lead to a morally right and acceptable way of living your life.