The Ethical Theory of Kantianism: a philosophy essay on morality
What a person should do and what a person wants to do are often not compatible. Doing what one wants to do would usually bring immediate gratification/happiness, but might not benefit the person in the long run. On the other hand, doing what one should do may cause immediate discomfort/unhappiness, even if it is good for the person. This is the underlying message of Kantianism: the purpose of morality is NOT to make you happy! (Although in the long run, doing the right thing should eventually lead to happiness). The whole purpose of morality is to do the right thing just for the sake of doing it.
Kant says that we determine internally what is wrong or right. Through autonomy (self law), you use yourself as a guide. The individual determines her/his own behavior, rather than someone else dictating how you are supposed to behave or act. I agree with this whole-heartedly. In the Simpsons essay by James Lawler, Flanders is used as an example of a person who is not autonomous. Flanders behaves morally, but not because he believes it is right or appropriate for him. Flanders only acts the way he does because he feels “God
»
- pchan33's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 1269 reads
Interesting
What would you say about people who defend their homeland from foreign invaders, or say revolutionaries fighting against a corrupt government, or say someone who sells drugs to feed their family? What is the purpose of morality if not for happiness? Is not stability not happiness? Is not security happiness? When you say morality is doing what one should do, do you mean for the greater good or for the good of that person? Again, what is morality;s purpose if not for happiness? I'm asking this because there are so many situations in life that morality is not such a black and white, or clear cut topic. A lot of times what one person says should happen can be made to seem like it's for the greater good, when it is only used as a pretext to obtain a specific goal for that selfish individual, while some acts that appear completely selfish may act as a tool to serve the greater good. That is, if the greater good is truely what defines a moral act. I'm not so completely sure it does. After all, that same concept was used as the final reason to drop the atom bombs, in order to save a greater number of people from dying, so we killed 200,000+ Japenese instead of losing and estimated 400,000+ of our own troops in a full out assault(Don't quote me on these numbers, not exactly sure). After all, isn't that just an extremely overblown example of the example you gave? What if there had been another way? I know, that's an incredibly screwed up question, but what if?
Life is just never that simple most of the time, or maybe it's just as complecated as we want to make it. People like having nice and tidy answers and rules to life, when it really isn't so neet and tidy. Neet and tidy answers to life scare me, they have names like "The Final Solution" or "The Patriot Act", but they can also embody nobels ideas such as the Bill of rights or the ten comandments. Ahhh... Anyways, it's late and I'm getting off topic. It is a very interesting thing to think about.