At least, that's what philosophy tells us. For example, Immanuel Kant, the adoptive father of modern philosophy, would say that everyone has to keep their promises, no matter what happens. If we break a promise, even if the intent is good, we're still treating peoples as means to an end, and that's not cool.
Or, at least, that's what Kant would say. On the other hand, Kant also said that we have a moral responsibility to do what is best for the world. And, then, we make promises to ourselves, as well - what happens if our promises to ourselves conflict with later promises to others? Are we supposed to use ourselves as a means of advancing morality? The worst part is that Kant never tells you how to weigh two moral imperatives against each other, such as justice and mercy. Or, self-interest and other-person-interest.
For example, do we have any moral obligations to ourselves? I guess I'd call this a "reflexive" imperative. Reflexive imperatives would include a moral obligation to keep ourselves alive and to do what we would be best at. (Yes, Kant does promote this in his essay A history of the world with a Cosmopolitan Intent.) Sadly, Kant never discussed the implications of his work in this area.
Well, I'm going to, damnit, because it disproves everything he worked so hard to create.
When you start to consider yourself as an object with morals attached to it, every moral becomes fuzzy, because now you have to consider your own desires and wants. Plus, at that same time, you have to consider every person around you. Notice that Kant's moral system looks pretty bad here - what if I made myself a promise to stick with Lincoln-Douglas debate, but then made a promise to someone else to do Policy? Well, then, the latter promise must be illegitimate because I made the other promise first. On the other hand, the second promise effects two different people - surely, it must be more important than a promise made to yourself, right? But what if your first promise effects even more people in a positive manner? Or, what if keeping both of the promises cause negative effects to oneself?Or, what if keeping ANY of the promises causes negative effects to everyone? What if you just straight up made a terrible, terrible decision and promised something you couldn't give? Promises make things difficult. :(
So, when you're screwing someone over, there are some important considerations. First, are you simply using the other person as a means to an end? For example, if you hurt another person only for your own benefit, then you're a jerk. But, if you have their best interests in mind, too, then it should be okay... maybe. You can't treat them as a utility monster, though - you can't just hurt someone to make them happy. Okay, that's not true, either, because doing what helps other people, even if you initially hurt them, is a moral imperative. But, on the other hand, that's also only effectually moral.
The moral of this story is that Kant's morals only work under a utilitarian framework as soon as you start considering yourself as someone that you have to be nice to. This also means that hurting someone else for the "right" reasons (whatever those may be) is sometimes good.
What a terribly convoluted way to start a self-reflection blog.
No comments:
Post a Comment