Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter. Please, subscribe or login to access full text content. To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us. All Rights Reserved. OSO version 0.
University Press Scholarship Online. Sign in. Not registered? Sign up. Publications Pages Publications Pages. Recently viewed 0 Save Search. Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content. In order to advance my own interests, I will not do anything to help others in need unless I have something to gain from doing so.
The PSW will contain a law of nature of the form:. To advance his own interests, everyone always refrains from helping others in need unless he has something to gain from doing so. Now Kant would say that there is no problem in conceiving such a PSW in fact, those of a cynical bent might think that the PSW is no different from the existing world. Applying the first question of the procedure, we see that we cannot answer no to the first question: it would be rational in the PSW to follow the maxim if everyone else is doing the same, because in that world everyone is indifferent to the needs of others, so the best way for you to advance your interests is to be likewise indifferent for you will not gain anything through reciprocity of others by departing from the maxim.
However, according to Kant the second part of the test fails: I could not rationally choose the PSW, because "a will which resolved itself in this way would contradict itself, inasmuch as cases might often arise in which one would have need of the love and sympathy of others and in which he would deprive himself, by such a law of nature springing from his own will, of all hope of the aid he wants for himself If a maxim flunks Q1 see above then we have a perfect duty to refrain from acting on that maxim.
If a maxim flunks Q2 see above but not Q1 , then we have an imperfect duty to refrain from acting on that maxim. Illustration : We have a perfect duty not to murder. This means that we must never murder under any circumstances. We have an imperfect duty to help the needy.
This means that we should do so on occasion, where this does not conflict with our perfect duties. Duties Perfect Imperfect. To Others tell truth assist others in need. To Self no suicide or. According to Kant, perfect duties duties of justice can appropriately be enforced by means of the public, juridical use of coercion, and the remainder are imperfect duties duties of virtue , which are fit subjects for moral assessment but not coercion.
Martha, as a home-service medical care volunteer, has cared for George through the final weeks of his fatal illness. Just before he died, George told Martha where a large sum of money he had accumulated was stored. Since George's illness did not affect his mental capacity, she agreed. But now that he has died, she is considering using the money to support the activities of the local Hunger Task Force, an organization that provides donated food to those who need it.
George has no surviving friends or relatives, and no one else knows about the money. He left no written will. To run this case through the CI procedure, we first need to identify Martha's maxim. To do this, we look at the description of the situation and see if we can determine which sort of principle Martha would sincerely formulate as justification of her action.
Recall that all maxims can be put into the form:. So we can determine the maxim by specifying what should go in for x, y and z. The following substitutions seem plausible:. So the three steps of the CI procedure will look like this:. Formulate the maxim : I am to break a deathbed promise when doing so will allow me to do much more good for humanity, in order to promote the goal of increasing human welfare. Generalize the maxim into a law of nature : Everyone always breaks deathbed promises when doing so allows him to do much more good for humanity, in order to promote the goal of increasing human welfare.
Figure out the PSW : In the PSW, it will be common knowledge that people break deathbed promises whenever they think they can do much more good for humanity. First question: Would it be rational to adopt and act on my maxim in the PSW?
No, because in the PSW no one would ask for deathbed promises, because everyone would know that they are not genuine commitments. The maxim would not be an effective policy for promoting human welfare.
Since the answer to the first question is "No," Martha should not act on her maxim, since it fails the "contradiction in conception" test. The steps here are as follows:. For each option, estimate the "utility" of each of its consequences. It seems that the options Martha faces are these:. Keep the promise. Give the money to the Hunger Task Force. The following table specifies probabilities and utilities for each consequence of each option:.
Utility impact on human welfare. SPACE gets the money and spends it on its own programs. HTF uses money to feed many hungry people. Action is discovered. Somewhat lower than. We can use the information in this table to identify the best prospect.
Since keeping the promise is certain to have only a small impact on human welfare, whereas giving the money to HTF is very likely to have a much bigger impact, with only a small chance of producing an outcome that is only somewhat worse than the certain outcome of keeping the promise, giving the money to HTF is the best prospect.
Consequently it is the option that utilitarianism recommends. Recall that there were two formulations of the Categorical Imperative:. So far, we have been discussing CI1. Now, we will briefly turn our attention to CI2.
To use someone as a mere means is to involve them in a scheme of action to which they could not in principle consent. In typical transactions e. Each person assumes the other is acting out of his or her own motives and is not just a thing to be manipulated. But in cases of promise breaking, deception, and coercion to name a few people act wrongly in using each other as mere means. She is being used as a mere means.
Therefore, when facing a seeming conflict between virtues, such as a compassionate lie, virtue ethics charges us to imagine what some ideal individual would do and act accordingly, thus making the ideal person's virtues one's own. In essence, virtue ethics finds lying immoral when it is a step away, not toward, the process of becoming the best persons we can be. According to a third perspective, utilitarian ethics, Kant and virtue ethicists ignore the only test necessary for judging the morality of a lie - balancing the benefits and harms of its consequences.
Utilitarians base their reasoning on the claim that actions, including lying, are morally acceptable when the resulting consequences maximize benefit or minimize harm. A lie, therefore, is not always immoral; in fact, when lying is necessary to maximize benefit or minimize harm, it may be immoral not to lie.
The challenge in applying utilitarian ethics to everyday decision making, however, is significant: one must correctly estimate the overall consequences of one's actions before making a decision. The following example illustrates what utilitarian decision makers must consider when lying is an option.
Recall the son and his dying mother described earlier. On careful reflection, the son reasons that honoring his mother's request to settle the estate and deposit the money in her coffin cannot be the right thing to do. The money would be wasted or possibly stolen and the poor would be denied an opportunity to benefit.
Knowing that his mother would ask someone else to settle her affairs if he declared his true intentions, the son lies by falsely promising to honor her request. Utilitarianism, in this example, supports the son's decision on the determination that the greater good is served i.
Altruistic or noble lies, which specifically intend to benefit someone else, can also be considered morally acceptable by utilitarians. Picture the doctor telling her depressed patient that there is a 50 percent probability that he will recover, when in truth all tests confirm the man has only six months to live. The doctor knows from years of experience that, if she told this type of patient the truth, he would probably fall deeper into depression or possibly commit suicide.
With the hope of recovery, though, he will most likely cherish his remaining time. Again, utilitarianism would seem to support the doctor's decision because the greater good is served by her altruistic lie. While the above reasoning is logical, critics of utilitarianism claim that its practical application in decision making is seriously flawed.
People often poorly estimate the consequences of their actions or specifically undervalue or ignore the harmful consequences to society e.
Following the examples above, the son's abuse of his mother's faith in him and the doctor's lie undermine the value of trust among all those who learn of the deceits.
As trust declines, cynicism spreads, and our overall quality of life drops. In addition, suggesting that people may lie in pursuit of the greater good can lead to a "slippery slope," where the line between cleverly calculated moral justifications and empty excuses for selfish behavior is exceedingly thin.
Sliding down the slope eventually kindles morally bankrupt statements e.
0コメント